1. Trang chủ
  2. » Ngoại Ngữ

Online privacy and personal information disclosure

168 438 0

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 168
Dung lượng 3,19 MB

Nội dung

            FACEBOOK  AND  YOUTH@SG:  ONLINE  PRIVACY  AND   PERSONAL  INFORMATION  DISCLOSURE               OU  MEIMIN                 NATIONAL  UNIVERSITY  OF  SINGAPORE     2010                           FACEBOOK  AND  YOUTH@SG:  ONLINE  PRIVACY  AND   PERSONAL  INFORMATION  DISCLOSURE                   OU  MEIMIN   (B.  Soc  Sc,  Hons.,  Minor  in  Technopreneurship),  NUS                     A  THESIS  SUBMITTED     FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  MASTERS  IN  ARTS     COMMUNICATIONS  AND  NEW  MEDIA  PROGRAMME       NATIONAL  UNIVERSITY  OF  SINGAPORE     2010     2 Acknowledgements       It  is  with  a  humble  heart  that  I  thank  the  many  people  in  my  life  who  made  this   thesis  possible.       Many  people  have  been  part  of  my  path  in  graduate  school,  as  friends,  teachers,   mentors  and  supporters.  Dr  Lim  Sun  Sun  has  played  an  instrumental  role  in  my   thesis  endeavor.  I  have  learnt  a  lot  from  her  succinct  method  of  instruction.  She   has   allowed   me   to   learn   independently   as   a   budding   scholar   in   communications.   Her   expert   grasp   of   existing   concepts   benefitted   me   as   I   experimented   with   different  areas  before  deciding  on  social  media,  privacy  and  youths.       Other   mentors   in   the   Communications   and   New   Media   programme   include   Dr   “Millie”  Rivera,  who  convinced  me  to  return  to  pursue  my  graduate  degree.  Her   mentorship  and  advice  have  been  invaluable.  My  gratitude  is  also  extended  to  Dr   Cho   HiChang,   whose   support   and   patience   allowed   me   to   learn   a   lot   under   his   tutelage.  I  am  thankful  to  have  completed  this  graduate  course  with  the  support   from  the  programme  and  I  have  brought  away  from  my  graduate  education  not   just  technical  and  theoretical  knowledge,  but  precious  life  lessons  as  well.     My   gratitude   also   extends   to   my   fellow   colleagues   and   graduate   students:   Ms   Gene   Van   Heerden   and   Mr   Gui   Kai   Chong,   esteemed   colleagues   whom   I   have   worked   with   and   developed   respect   for;   office-­‐mates   Aaron,   Aru,   Charlene,   Li   Ting,   Jodie,   Joshua,   Elmie,   Siti   and   Yoke   Hian,   who   brighten   up   my   days   at   work;   and   fellow   grad   students   Carol,   Ganga,   Wang   Rong   and   Cathy,   who   make   graduate  classes  both  fun  and  intellectually  stimulating.  The  CNM  administrative   staff   Retna   and   Adeline   have   provided   support   throughout   my   graduate   education  and  deserve  acknowledgement  for  their  daily  efforts.     I   am   grateful   to   have   had   the   ever-­‐present   support   of   family   and   friends   while   completing   graduate   school.   To   Clare,   Shuting,   Alice,   Yanni   and   Li   Ting,   who   lent   a   listening   ear   to   my   ideas   and   volunteered   their   help   for   my   thesis   data   collection,  I  thank  you  for  your  time  and  help.  To  my  “Fab  Five”,  Ange,  Viv,  Steph   and  JW,  our  meet  ups  provided  me  with  the  respite  needed  to  continue  with  my   writing   and   grading.   Your   boundless   hospitality   and   homemade   hearty   fare   never  fail  to  recharge  me  to  handle  the  challenges  that  came  along.     Special  mentions  include  Siti,  Clare  and  Yanni,  who  have  gone  out  of  their  way  to   help   me   make   completing   this   thesis   a   reality.   Words   alone   cannot   express   my   gratitude  for  your  help,  support  and  encouragement  throughout  this  process.       Last   but   not   least,   to   my   parents,   David   Ow   and   Serena   Tan,   and   to   my   grandparents,   I   dedicate   this   thesis   to   you,   for   all   your   prayers,   unwavering   love   and  support  through  my  all  nighters  and  balancing  of  work  and  studies.     3 Table  of  Contents   Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 6   List  of  Tables......................................................................................................................................... 7   List  of  Figures....................................................................................................................................... 8   Chapter  1:  Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9   1.1  Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9   1.2  Background  information:  What  is  a  Social  Network  Site  (SNS)? .........................15   1.3  Basic  features  of  SNS ...............................................................................................................17   1.4  World-­‐wide  SNS  phenomenon  and  the  rise  of  Facebook ....................................... 19   1.5  Background  of  Facebook .......................................................................................................19   1.5.1  Facebook  features ................................................................................................................ 21   1.5.2  What  sets  Facebook  apart  from  other  SNS................................................................ 22   1.6  Popular  online  social  networking  websites  in  Singapore .......................................22   Chapter  2:  Literature  review  on  youths  and  their  online  culture .............................. 23   2.1  Youths ........................................................................................................................................... 23   2.1.1  The  idea  of  a  generation.................................................................................................... 23   2.1.2  Identity  formation  and  negotiation.............................................................................. 25   2.2  Concerns  about  youth  online.............................................................................................. 29   2.2.1  Online  sexual  solicitations................................................................................................ 31   2.2.2  Internet  and  health-­‐related  problems......................................................................... 32   Chapter  3:  Literature  review  on  SNS ...................................................................................... 33   3.1  SNS  research  to  date............................................................................................................... 33   3.1.1  Virtual  communities  and  the  network  effect............................................................ 36   3.1.2  Community,  culture  and  civic  engagement............................................................... 36   3.1.3  Social  Capital .......................................................................................................................... 37   3.1.4  Identity,  self-­‐presentation  and  contextualizing  in  SNS........................................ 38   3.2  Framing  policy-­‐relevant  research .................................................................................... 42   Chapter  4:  Social  network  theory,  privacy  and  information  disclosure.................. 44   4.1  Concept  of  privacy ....................................................................................................................44   4.2  Social  network  theory  and  privacy ...................................................................................47   4.3  Online  information  disclosure  and  privacy ...................................................................48   4.4  SNS  and  privacy .........................................................................................................................51   4.4.1  SNS  privacy  policies  and  settings ............................................................ 53 4.5  Parents  and  online  privacy ...................................................................................................54   4.6  Youths  and  online  privacy.....................................................................................................55   4.7  Research  Questions..................................................................................................................56   Chapter  5:  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 57   5.1  Selecting  research  methods..................................................................................................57   5.1.3  Content  analysis.................................................................................................................... 61   4 5.1.4  Surveys...................................................................................................................................... 61   5.1.5  Benefits  of  mixed  methods  research............................................................................ 63   5.2  Research  Design ....................................................................................................................... 64   5.2.1  Content  analysis.................................................................................................................... 66   5.2.1.1  Coding  frame ...................................................................................................................... 66   5.2.1.2  Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 68   5.2.2  Surveys...................................................................................................................................... 74   5.2.2.1  Survey  format  and  questions....................................................................................... 75   5.2.2.2  Dimensions.......................................................................................................................... 79   5.2.2.3  Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 83   5.3  Challenges  encountered  in  the  course  of  data  collection ....................................... 87   5.3.1  Challenges  faced  at  the  conceptualization  phase ................................................... 87   5.3.2  Challenges  faced  at  the  implementation  phase....................................................... 87   Chapter  6:  Findings  and  discussion  –  Content  analysis.................................................. 88   6.1  Overview  of  chapter................................................................................................................ 88   6.2  Representativeness  of  student  profiles  and  data  storage ...................................... 89   6.3  Addressing  the  research  questions.................................................................................. 90   6.3  Observations  from  the  content  analysis  of  Singaporean  youths’  Facebook   profiles ................................................................................................................................................. 99   6.3.1  Number  of  friends  on  Facebook..................................................................................... 99   6.3.2  Youths’  different  approaches  to  Facebook  information  privacy ...................100   6.4  Contribution  to  existing  literature .................................................................................103   6.4.1  SNS  and  youths....................................................................................................................103   6.4.2  Level  of  information  disclosure  in  SNS.....................................................................104   6.4.3  Virtual  communities  and  network  effect .................................................................105   6.4.4  Identity,  self-­‐presentation  and  contextualizing  in  SNS......................................106   6.4.5  Privacy,  surveillance  and  legal  issues........................................................................108   6.5  Laying  groundwork  for  online  surveys ........................................................................108   Chapter  7:  Findings  and  discussion  –  Online  Surveys...................................................109   7.1  Overview  of  chapter..............................................................................................................109   7.2  Representativeness  of  survey  participants  and  data  storage.............................110   7.4  Discussion  from  findings  of  online  surveys................................................................130   7.4.1  Youths’  self-­‐assessment  of  Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards.............................130   7.5  Contribution  of  study  to  current  literature ................................................................135   7.5.1  Negotiation  and  management  of  identity  in  Facebook......................................135   7.5.2  Parental  concerns  and  Facebook.................................................................................135   7.5.3  Policy  and  Facebook..........................................................................................................137   Chapter  8:  Conclusion..................................................................................................................139   8.1  Summary  of  findings.............................................................................................................139   8.2  Limitations  of  study ..............................................................................................................141   8.3  Implications  of  study  on  policy-­‐making.......................................................................142   8.4  Suggestions  for  future  research.......................................................................................144   Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................146   Appendices .......................................................................................................................................165       5 Summary     With   the   proliferation   of   social   networking   sites   (SNS)   such   as   Facebook   gaining   a  foothold  in  Singaporean  youths’  daily  lives,  Singaporean  parents  and  educators   are   seeking   to   better   understand   the   different   facets   of   social   interaction   in   SNS.   In   particular,   the   issue   of   youths’   safety   online   has   been   of   interest   to   parents,   policymakers  and  educators.     For  the  purpose  of  this  study,  research  questions  revolve  around  two  pertinent   issues   of   concern   regarding   Singaporean   youths’   usage   of   Facebook,   currently   Singapore’s  most  popular  SNS.  I  seek  to  understand:   i) whether  youths  are  utilizing  Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards,  and     ii) the  extent  and  nature  of  personal  information  revealed  in  their  Facebook   profiles.       Understanding   youths’   privacy   perceptions   based   on   their   privacy   safeguards   and   level   of   personal   information   in   Facebook,   as   well   as   Singaporean   parents’   online   privacy   perceptions   and   knowledge   of   their   children’s   levels   of   information   disclosure   in   Facebook   can   aid   in   ascertaining   if   there   exists   a   difference   in   attitudes   towards   online   privacy   and   personal   information   disclosure   between   Singaporean   parents   and   youths.   Ascertaining   this   will   in   turn  aid  in  bridging  the  differences  in  perceptions,  if  any,  between  parents  and   their   teenage   children,   thus   facilitating   discussions   when   parents   guide   their   teenage   children   in   online   safety.   Results   from   the   study   will   also   provide   valuable  input  when  formulating  policies  and  planning  online  safety  campaigns.     Results  from  the  two-­‐pronged  approach  of  content  analysis  and  online  surveys   indicate  that  Singaporean  parents  are  generally  aware  of  their  teenage  children’s   habits   and   level   of   personal   information   disclosure.   Both   Singaporean   parents   and   youths   are   privacy-­‐oriented,   but   youths   are   willing   to   compromise   some   privacy  in  order  to  allow  their  peers  understand  them  better  via  Facebook.       Youths  are  aware  and  do  utilize  Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards  but  there  exists  a   disparity   between   what   they   think   they   know   and   what   they   actually   know   about   the   privacy   settings   which   should   be   noted.   In   terms   of   the   extent   and   level   of   personal   information   disclosure,   Singaporean   youths   reveal   more   personal  information  in  their  public  profiles  than  private  profiles.  However,  they   are  also  more  discerning  about  the  types  of  personal  information  they  reveal  in   Facebook  and  utilize  creative  methods  to  mask  their  personal  information.       My   findings   indicate   that   there   is   no   great   disparity   in   privacy   perceptions   between   Singaporean   parents   and   youths   and   that   there   is   already   ongoing   dialogue   between   parents   and   youths   online   safety.     This   creates   a   conducive   environment  for  parents  to  discuss  with  their  youths  about  online  safety  without   intruding  into  youths’  practices  of  identity  management  in  Facebook.   6 List  of  Tables     a) Table  6.1:  Types  of  profiles  and  personal  information  revealed   b) Table  6.2:  Identifiers  in  youths’  Facebook  profiles   c) Table  7.1:  Types  of  information  Singaporean  youths  post  in  Facebook   d) Table  7.2:  Privacy  values  attached  to  types  of  personal  information  in  Facebook   e) Table   7.3:   Veracity   of   personal   information   that   Singaporean   youths   post   on   Facebook   f) Table  7.4:  Topics  about  online  safety  that  parents  discuss  with  their  teenagers   g) Table  7.5:  Steps  taken  by  parents  to  enhance  their  teenagers’  online  safety   h) Table  7.6:  Parents’  impression  of  their  teenage  children’s  Facebook  usage   i) Table  7.7:  Youths’  Facebook  usage   j) Table   7.8:   Types   of   information   parents   think   their   teenage   children   post   in   Facebook   k) Table  7.9:  Parents’  most  frequent  sources  of  information  for  online  safety   l) Table  7.10:  Parental  concerns  about  teenage  children’s  online  social  interactions   m) Table   7.11:   Parents’   perceptions   of   how   Facebook   aids   in   teenage   children’s   development   n) Table  7.12:  Privacy  perceptions  of  youths   o) Table  7.13:  Privacy  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths  –  Independent-­‐samples  t   Test   p) Table  7.14:  Privacy  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths  –  Independent-­‐samples  t   Test   q) Table  7.15:  Privacy  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths  –  Independent-­‐samples  t   Test   r) Table  7.16:  Cronbach’s  alpha  for  Westin  privacy  segmentation  dimensions   s) Table   7.17:   Reliability   statistics   for   Westin   privacy   segmentation   dimensions   –   youths   t) Table  7.18:  Percentage  of  youths  who  are  Privacy   Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds   u) Table  7.19:  Percentage  of  parents  who  are  Privacy   Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds   v) Table  7.20:  Comparison  of  privacy  perception  means  across  gender  for  parents   and  youths   w) Table  7.21:  Percentage  of  youths  who  are  aware  of  the  various  Facebook  privacy   safeguards   x) Table   7.22:   Percentage   of   youths   who   utilize   the   various   Facebook   privacy   safeguards         7   List  of  Figures     a) Fig  5.1:  Facebook’s  search  engine   b) Fig  5.2:  Friends  list  of  a  student   c) Fig  5.3:  A  Secondary  school’s  Facebook  page   d) Fig  5.4:  Example  of  posts  in  discussion  boards  to  get  students  for  online  survey   e) Fig  6.1:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  public  profile   f) Fig.  6.2:  A  Facebook  profile  with  conflicting  personal  information   g) Fig.  6.3:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  private  profile  with  minimal  personal   information   h) Fig.  6.4:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  private  profile  revealing  more  personal   information   i) Fig.  6.5:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  private  profile  under  a  moniker   j) Fig.  6.6:  An  example  of  a  youth’s  Facebook  profile  under  a  moniker-­‐real  name   k) Fig.  6.7:  Another  example  of  a  youth  and  her  friends  who  adopt  moniker-­‐real   names   l) Fig.  6.8:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  profile  under  a  colloquial  moniker,  “Gabie   Suaku”   m) Fig.  6.9:  A  Singaporean  youth’s  Facebook  profile  photo  displaying  her  social  and   school  affiliations   n) Fig  6.10:  A  Singaporean  youth’s  Facebook  profile  photo  emphasizing  on   achievements  in  school   o) Fig  6:11:  Singaporean  youth’s  profile  where  youth  has  parents  as  friends  on   Facebook     p) Fig  6.12:  A  profile  photo  of  a  group  that  belongs  to  the  same  demographic  group   q) Fig  6.13:  A  profile  photo  of  two  groups  of  Singaporean  youths  that  belong  to  the   same  demographic  group           8 Chapter  1:  Introduction         1.1  Introduction     With  the  advent  of  Web  2.0,  we  see  a  tremendous  increase  in  social  media  usage.   The  rise  of  blogs  and  other  user-­‐generated  content  outlets  such  as  Youtube  for   videos   and   Flickr   for   photos   have   been   gaining   popularity   not   only   because   they   allow   for   users   to   create   and   upload   their   work,   but   also   because   they   provide   the   option   to   share   their   content   with   others.   This   has   contributed   to   the   internet   being   used   in   an   increasingly   social   manner.   Interactivity   and   inter-­‐ connectedness  are  synonymous  with  the  most  popular  activities  online  today.       One   of   the   most   frequently   used   social   media   these   days   is   social   networking   sites   (SNS).   While   the   term   used   to   include   blogs,   video   and   photo   sharing   websites;   SNS   today   usually   refer   to   websites   such   as   MySpace,   Multiply,   Friendster,   Orkut,   LinkedIn   and   Facebook.   Such   websites   have   elements   of   blogging,   video   and   photo   sharing   embedded   within   them   though   their   main   feature  is  to  explicate  one’s  social  network  and  displaying  links  between  users.         While   terms   such   as   “poking”,   “throwing   sheep”   and   having   virtual   food   fights   might  have  drawn  perplexed  responses  two  years  ago,  these  terms  have  become   part   of   the   daily   activities   conducted   in   popular   SNS   today.   The   feverish   popularity   of   such   websites   has   no   doubt   piqued   the   curiosity   and   interest   of   many  students  as  well  as  young  working  professionals.  “Poking”  and  “throwing   sheep”   are   just   some   of   the   many   activities   one   can   engage   in   Facebook,   9 currently   one   of   the   most   popular   SNS   used   to   socialize   with   both   family   and   friends,   expanding   and   organizing   existing   offline   social   connections   while   building  new  ones.     Besides   allowing   for   communication   among   the   ever-­‐widening   circles   of   both   youths  and  adults,  another  draw  of  SNS  is  how  they  allow  for  the  convergence  of   different  online  tools:  emailing,  messaging,  website  creation  and  customization,   dairies,   photo   albums,   music   or   video   uploading   and   downloading.   Technology   has   become   a   platform   where   different   types   of   applications   can   be   used,   for   the   same  purpose  of  socializing.  SNS  do  not  come  with  a  prescribed  way  of  using  the   technology,   but   rather,   permit   customization,   depending   on   the   preferences   of   the   users.   This   has   allowed   for   users   to   explore   the   affordances   of   SNS,   to   pick   and  choose  which  tools  to  use  for  socialization.  This  has  also  resulted  in  a  new   set   of   online   demographics,   where   people   from   the   same   demographic   group   offline  may  use  SNS  differently,  based  on  their  interests  and  preferences.       The  rise  of  SNS  has  drawn  the  attention  of  not  just  media  scholars,  but  also  the   media,   as   seen   from   the   increasing   coverage   of   the   SNS   phenomena   in   newspapers.  Advertisers  and  businesses  are  also  interested  to  see  how  they  can   leverage   on   SNS   to   get   their   messages   out   to   their   target   markets   in   a   manner   that  is  most  accessible  to  their  consumers.  Educators  are  interested  in  whether   they   can   incorporate   SNS   in   their   syllabus   to   capture   their   students’   attention   and   sustaining   their   interest   while   carrying   out   classes   effectively.   Even   political   10 figures   are   creating   a   presence   in   SNS   so   as   to   better   reach   out   to   their   constituents;   with   the   2008   American   elections   demonstrating   this   point.   Therefore  this  interest  in  SNS  requires  more  in  depth  investigation  and  research   as   we   need   to   better   understand   SNS   and   how   it   is   being   used,   especially   among   today’s   highly   mediatized   youths.   This   is   because   youths   use   SNS   to   not   just   socialize,  but  also  to  build  and  try  out  different  ways  of  portraying  themselves  in   their  online  profiles.     In  Singapore,  a  lot  of  media  coverage  in  the  last  two  years  have  been  on  SNS  and   how   Singaporean   youths   use   SNS.   The   exponential   increase   in   Facebook   users,   especially  among  the  youths,  has  drawn  a  lot  of  attention  from  parents  as  well  as   educators  who  have  sought  to  better  understand  why  youth  in  Singapore  are  so   active   on   SNS.   Parents   are   also   concerned   about   its   potential   for   misuse,   given   cases  reported  in  the  news  of  Singaporean  youths  engaging  in  racist  activities  on   Faacebook   (The   Straits   Times,   2010)   and   cyberbullying   (The   Straits   Times,   2010).   There   is,   however,   a   lack   of   information   obtained   via   formal   academic   research  on  youths’  use  of  SNS  in  a  local  context,  though  there  have  been  studies   have  been  conducted  overseas,  especially  in  the  States.  This  may  be  attributed  to   the   States   as   being   the   country   where   some   of   the   most   popular   SNS   such   as   Facebook   were   created   and   are   still   very   popular.   The   SNS   culture   over   in   the   States  and  its  steady  uptake  have  allowed  for  researchers  to  conduct  studies  on   the   SNS   technology   and   users.   This   paper   aims   to   value-­‐add   to   existing   studies   done  on  SNS  and  youths  in  a  Singapore  context.     11   The  Facebook  fever  hit  Singapore  in  2008  with  students  and  young  professionals   rushing   in   droves   to   sign   up.   As   of   July   2008,   Singapore   was   in   the   top   ten   countries   with   the   highest   Facebook   penetration   rate   (Facebook.com,   2008).   Facebook   has   also   become   the   third   most   visited   website   in   Singapore   in   April   2009   (Hitwise   Asia,   2009).   Thus   there   is   a   need   to   understand   this   growing   interest   in   SNS   in   Singapore.   Such   interest   in   SNS   will   have   spillover   effects   in   the   social,   economic   and   even   political   domains.   Local   business   operations   will   be   affected   (Cheney,   2008),   the   public   sphere   will   experience   changes   as   well   (Sullivan,   2008)   and   even   the   way   people   conduct   relationships   online   and   offline   will   be   affected   (Magid,   2008).   The   far-­‐reaching   effects   of   SNS   behoove   the  need  to  further  examine  SNS  in  the  Singaporean  context.       Another   concern   that   has   arisen   from   the   rise   of   SNS   in   Singapore   is   that   of   youths’   safety   online.   Issues   such   as   online   sexual   solicitation   targeted   at   youths   have  been  of  concern  to  parents,  educators  as  well  as  governments  as  they  are   concerned   that   youths   are   vulnerable   to   such   deviant   acts,   especially   sexual   solicitation.  Therefore,  this  paper  hopes  to  bridge  the  gap,  by  understanding  the   knowledge  about  SNS  parents  and  their  children,  as  well  as  how  youths  portray   themselves   online,   if   they   are   savvy   enough   to   protect   themselves   online   and   how  youths  utilize  SNS  settings  to  protect  their  personal  information  and  their   level  of  information  disclosure  in  SNS.       12 This  research  thus  specifically  seeks  to  answer  the  following  questions:   RQ1:  Do  Singaporean  youths  adopt  privacy  safeguards  in  Facebook?     RQ2:   What   is   the   extent   and   nature   of   information   disclosure   by   Singapore   youths  in  SNS?   RQ3:   To   what   extent   are   Singaporean   parents   aware   of   the   nature   of   personal   information   disclosure   by   their   teenage   children   in   Facebook?   RQ4:  How  safe  do  Singaporean  parents  perceive  their  teenage  children  to   be  in  Facebook?   RQ5:  Are  there  disparities  between  youths’  and  parents’  perceptions  of  the   risk  of  personal  information  disclosure  vis  a  vis  Facebook?     For  the  rest  of  Chapter  One,  context  for  this  study  is  set  by  providing  background   information   on   the   basic   features   of   SNS,   how   SNS   became   a   worldwide   phenomenon   and   in   particular,   the   rise   of   Facebook   and   how   Facebook   differs   from  other  SNS.    The  parameters  for  this  study  shall  also  be  defined.     Chapter  Two  shall  discuss  the  demographic  group  for  this  research:  youths.  The   history   of   this   demographic   group,   the   issues   related   to   youths,   especially   identity   formation   and   negotiation,   which   are   predominantly   active   in   this   demographic.   Literature   discussing   youths   in   the   online   environment   shall   be   examined   as   well,   to   set   the   framework   for   this   study.   Issues   such   as   youths   and   13 online  identities,  online  pornography  and  sexual  solicitation  shall  be  the  focus  as   they  are  relevant  to  the  SNS  environment  that  is  the  context  of  this  research.       For  the  third  chapter,  concepts  related  to  SNS  shall  be  examined,  as  well  as  the   conception   and   context   of   SNS,   its   evolution   and   current   state.   The   literature   review   will   discuss   concepts   in   social   science   and   communication   studies   that   have   been   used   in   previous   SNS   studies   and   related   concepts   such   as   identity   formation,  contextualizing  in  the  SNS  as  well  as  privacy  and  surveillance  issues   in  SNS  that  are  especially  applicable  to  youths.  There  will  be  a  brief  discussion  of   policy  implications  from  conducting  research  on  youths  and  SNS.       Chapter   Four   rounds   up   the   literature   review   by   compiling   a   coherent   theoretical   framework   for   privacy   and   information   disclosure.   Based   on   existing   scholarship,  the  concept  of  privacy  is  examined  in  the  context  of  social  network   theory.   Information   disclosure   is   also   drawn   into   the   discussion   and   privacy   literature   on   parents   and   youths   are   discussed,   including   on-­‐going   debates   on   youths   and   online   privacy.   The   chapter   concludes   with  research   questions   that   seek   to   understand   how   youths   portray   themselves   online   as   well   as   their   perceptions  of  online  privacy  vis  a  vis  their  parents’.     Chapter   Five   explicates   the   research   methods   involved   in   the   study.   Based   on   secondary   research   and   considering   from   a   myriad   of   research   methods   the   14 most   suitable   research   method   for   the   study,   a   combination   of   different   quantitative  research  methods  are  used  to  address  the  research  questions.       Chapter   Six   synthesizes   the   results   from   the   content   analysis   of   Facebook   profiles  and  discusses  the  findings  and  their  relevance  in  answering  the  research   questions.  It  concludes  with  how  the  findings  value-­‐add  to  current  literature  as   well  as  lend  to  the  framework  for  the  online  surveys     Chapter  Seven  provides  analyses  of  the  data  collected  from  the  online  surveys  to   first   establish   youths’   as   well   as   their   parents’   perception   of   offline   and   online   privacy.   Following   that,   findings   from   the   surveys   shall   be   utilized   to   demonstrate  if  there  exist  any  disparities  on  online  privacy  perceptions  between   Singaporean  youths  and  parents.       Chapter   Eight   shall   conclude   the   study   by   discussing   the   limitations   of   the   study   as   well   as   its   contribution   to   the   research   done   thus   far   on   SNS.   Proposals   and   suggestions  for  future  studies  shall  also  be  addressed  in  this  chapter.       1.2  Background  information:  What  is  a  Social  Network  Site  (SNS)?   Computer  Mediated  Communication  (CMC)  refers  to  communication  that  occurs   via   computer   technology   (Monberg,   2005).   CMC   is   an   excellent   way   to   participate   in   social   networks   in   today’s   networked   society.   Social   networks   exist   both   on   and   offline   and   involve   people   planning   and   cultivating   business,   15 social  contacts,  and  personal  relationships  (Villar,  Juan,  &  Capell,  2000;  Carroll  &   Rosson,  2003;  Carter,  2005;  Nardi,  2005;  Anderson  &  Emmers-­‐Sommer,  2006).       Like  many  emergent  technologies,  SNS  are  difficult  to  define  as  they  usually  have   an  amalgamation  of  features  from  other  successful  web  applications.  These  sites,   which  include  Facebook  and  MySpace,  are  fairly  new.  Such  websites  usually  have   applications   that   are   software   applications   used   within   SNS   but   are   not   standalone  social  network  applications  (Vie,  2007).       A   distinctive   feature   of   SNS   is   that   they   exist   in   computer   mediated   environments  which  rely  on  social  software  applications  to  allow  individuals  to   build  their  virtual  profiles,  make  connections  with  other  members  and  establish   nodal   relationships   among   selected   user   profiles   (boyd,   2004).   A   definition   which  was  proposed  by  boyd  and  Ellison  (2007)  mentioned  basic  features  of  SNS   which  included  “(1)  a  public  or  semi-­‐public  profile  within  a  bounded  system,  (2)   articulate  a  list  of  other  users  with  whom  they  share  a  connection  and  (3)  view   and   traverse   their   list   of   connections   and   those   made   by   others   within   the   system.”   This   definition   captures   the   crux   of   SNS,   which   is   the   explicating   of   relationships’  interconnectivity.     Members   of   SNS   create   profiles   or   virtual   personas   to   network   and   connect   to   other   members.   These   sites   exist   to   facilitate   the   formation   of   social   ties,   may   16 they   be   strong   (familial   bonds   and   very   good   friends)   or   weak   (acquaintances   and  co-­‐workers  one  does  not  know  very  well)  (Granovetter,  1973).       A  unique  feature  of  SNS  is  how  most  SNS  users  do  not  use  SNS  to  meet  strangers,   but  rather,  SNS  enable  users  to  articulate  and  make  visible  their  existing  social   networks.  This  reinforces  the  idea  of  latent  ties  (Haythornthwaite,  2005)  being   present   in   SNS   and   how   SNS   are   not   usually   used   to   initiate   relationships   between  strangers  though  the  technology  might  allow  for  such  activities  to  take   place.     1.3  Basic  features  of  SNS   With  the  plethora  of  technical  features  available  on  SNS,  the  primary  function  is   that  of  visible  profiles  which  display  a  list  of  “Friends”  who  are  also  users  of  the   system.   Such   profiles   consist   of   webpages   where   one   can   “type   oneself   into   being”   (Sunden,   2003,   p.3).   The   user   will   be   asked   to   fill   up   information   pertaining   to   one’s   location,   background,   education,   age   and   interests.   Photo   uploading  is  also  encouraged  to  complete  one’s  online  SNS  profile.       Some   sites   allow   for   customization   of   the   profile   pages   with   multimedia   tools   while  others  such  as  Facebook  allow  users  to  add  modules  or  applications.  The   user   also   yields   control   over   the   level   of   privacy   of   one’s   profile   page.   Profiles   of   some  SNS  come  up  as  results  on  search  engines  as  open  search  results  and  some   SNS  require  users  to  pay  to  maintain  a  level  of  privacy.  Facebook’s  approach  to   17 users’   privacy   is   different   from   other   SNS   as   by   default;   users   in   the   same   “network”   can   view   each   others’   profiles   unless   the   profile   owner   increases   his/her   privacy   settings.   Such   different   approaches   to   privacy   and   access   are   avenues  of  differentiation  between  SNS  (boyd  &  Ellison,  2007).   All  the  relationships  will  be  under  a  Friends  list  in  SNS.  Thus  the  term  “friends”   in   the   SNS   context   can   be   misleading   as   it   does   not   reflect   the   levels   which   people  are  connected.  The  depth  of  such  relationships  is  therefore  neglected  and   generalized.    However,  although  the  public  listing  of  friends  may  be  misleading,   it   is   a   critical   component   of   SNS   as   it   provides   links   to   the   profiles   of   one’s   Friends   that   allows   for   users   to   traverse   from   profile   to   profile;   thus   going   through   the   different   networks   of   different   users   by   clicking   on   the   various   profiles.  Again,  this  is  subject  to  the  privacy  settings  of  most  users  and  for  most   SNS,  the  longer  the  SNS  has  been  around,  the  more  private  the  profiles  become.       Most   SNS   also   provide   the   feature   of   private   and   open   messaging,   where   users   can  leave  messages  on  their  friends’  profile  or  to  leave  them  a  private  message.   This   feature   usually   involves   leaving   “comments”   or   “posts”   on   their   friends’   profiles.   For   Facebook,   private   messages   allow   for   more   than   one   friend   to   be   messaged  simultaneously.       18   1.4  World-­wide  SNS  phenomenon  and  the  rise  of  Facebook   Even   as   MySpace   captured   the   attention   of   the   American   and   international   media,   other   SNS   were   proliferating   and   gaining   popularity   all   over   the   world.   Friendster   gained   a   strong   user   base   in   the   Pacific   Islands,   Orkut   became   the   most  popular  SNS  in  Brazil  before  taking  off  in  India  as  well  (Madhavan,  2007).   Mixi   gained   support   in   Japan,   likewise   for   LunarStorm   in   Sweden,   just   as   the   Dutch   users   adopted   Hyves   as   their   national   SNS.   Hi5   became   popular   in   Latin   America   and   South   America   and   Europe,   Bebo   also   captured   the   United   Kingdom,  New  Zealand  and  Australia  SNS  market  (boyd  &  Ellison,  2007).     Unlike  previous  SNS,  Facebook  started  out  to  support  university  networks  only.   Facebook   began   in   early   2004   as   a   Harvard-­‐only   SNS   (Cassidy,   2006).   Only   students   with   a   Harvard   email   address   were   allowed   to   sign   up   with   the   SNS.   Later   Facebook   opened   up   registration   to   other   universities   and   education   institutions,  with  the  aim  to  keep  the  SNS  exclusive  and  it  was  perceived  to  be  a   private   and   closed   community   (boyd   &   Ellison,   2007).   In   September   2005,   Facebook  expanded  to  include  high  school  students  and  eventually  opened  up  to   anyone  with  an  email  address.       1.5  Background  of  Facebook   Facebook,   introduced   in   2004   by   Harvard   student   Mark   Zuckerburg   has   an   international   following   of   more   than   400   million   active   members   as   of   July   19 20101.   Presently,   Facebook   is   the   most   used   social   network   by   worldwide   monthly   active   users,   followed   by   NewsCorp’s   MySpace   (ComScore.com,   2010).       Facebook  is  highly  integrated  into  the  daily  media  habits  of  its  users:  the  typical   user  spends  about  20  minutes  a  day  on  the  site  and  two-­‐thirds  of  them  log  in  at   least   once   a   day   (Cassidy,   2006).   Taking   advantage   of   the   success   of   its   launch   among   the   college-­‐going   population,   Facebook   launched   a   high   school   version   in   early  September  2005.  The  following  year  saw  the  introduction  of  communities   in  the  website  such  as  Microsoft,  Amazon  and  PepsiCo  (Barton,  2006).       From  the  exponential  growth  of  Facebook  within  a  span  of  a  few  years,  we  can   see   how   quickly   Facebook   expanded   once   it   made   itself   more   accessible   and   available   to   the   masses.   Facebook   underwent   an   overhaul   in   July   2008   and   proceeded   to   officially   launch   its   revamped   website   which   received   generally   negative   feedback   from   most   Facebook   users.   Facebook   underwent   another   facelift  to  improve  its  privacy  settings  in  early  2010.  Despite  Facebook’s  recent   spate  of  criticisms  over  its  handling  of  users’  personal  information  and  privacy   settings,   it   not   only   managed   to   retain   most   of   its   users,   its   number   of   active   members  continues  to  increase  steadily.       1 Statistic obtained from http://stanford.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics 20 1.5.1  Facebook  features   One  of  Facebook’s  most  distinctive  features  is  its  News  Feed.  Instead  of  the  usual   newsfeed   where   one   gets   information   on   the   latest   news   events,   News   Feed   contains   the   latest   information   as   well   as   snippets   of   tidbits   about   the   friends   who  are  on  one’s  Facebook’s  list  of  friends  (Fig.  1  and  3  in  Appendices).     Users   are   also   able   to   view   other   friends’   profiles   and   the   activities   they   are   engaged   in.   This   can   be   seen   from   brief   updates   from   the   friends   as   well   as   photos   and   video   postings   and   comments   from   friends   of   friends   are   also   available   for   viewing   (Fig.   3   in   Appendices).   On   top   of   this,   users   are   also   able   to   do   most   of   the   basic   networking   actions   such   as   sending   private   messages,   posting   public   messages   on   the   Fun   Walls,   or   “poking”   friends   to   incite   a   response  from  them  (Fig.  2  in  Appendices).  Facebook  is  filled  activities  to  engage   one’s  friends  as  well  as  information  on  one’s  friends,  from  getting  help  in  social   games  such  as  Mafia  War  and  Farmville  to  the  events  their  friends  on  Facebook   are  attending.  This  has  brought  interactivity  to  a  new  level  as  now,  SNS  users  are   able  to  contribute  to  take  screen  shots  of  their  activities  in  social  games  such  as   Farmville   and   contribute   to   content   generation   in   the   SNS.   (Fig.   3   in   Appendices.)     It   is   interesting   to   note   that   one   is   able   to   restrict   the   viewership   of   one’s   profile   in   Facebook,   where   one   can   limit   the   access   to   one’s   profile   to   users   in   the   Friends   list.   Other   users   will   only   be   able   to   view   a   limited   profile   of   the   user.   21 This   feature   is   used   more   frequently   as   Facebook   now   allows   anyone   with   an   email  address  to  register.       1.5.2  What  sets  Facebook  apart  from  other  SNS   How   does   Facebook   distinguish   itself   from   the   other   online   social   networking   websites?   danah   boyd,   a   social   media   analyst   at   Microsoft,   puts   it   across   best   when   she   mentioned   that   the   initial   concept   of   Facebook   was   actually   a   groundbreaking   effort   to   link   up   students   in   the   Ivy   League   universities.   It   became   a   “key   piece   of   the   social   infrastructure”   in   such   institutions   (The   Straits   Times,   September   2007).   According   to   Zuckerburg,   the   motivation   for   setting   up   the  website  was  to  address  “a  social  need  at  Harvard  to  be  able  to  identify  people   in   the   other   residential   houses”   (Moyle,   2004).   This   initial   exclusive   nature   of   Facebook  was  what  set  it  apart  from  similar  websites  such  as  MySpace.       Finally,   the   unique   activities   which   are   carried   out   only   in   Facebook,   such   as   social   games   like   Farmville,   has   allowed   Facebook   users   to   develop   a   set   of   lingo   which  is  Facebook-­‐specific.  Such  applications  allow  Facebook  to  develop  a  self-­‐ sustaining  model.     1.6  Popular  online  social  networking  websites  in  Singapore   There  are  hundreds  of  social  networking  websites,  each  with  a  slightly  different   look   and   feel.   Some   of   the   more   popular   websites   in   the   Singaporean   context   include  Friendster,  which  is  open  to  the  general  public;  MySpace,  which  is  well-­‐ known  for  being  the  launch  pad  of  many  bands  as  well  as  Western  mainstream   22 singing   artistes.   From   Fig   2,   (re   Appendices),   the   most   popular   SNS   in   Singapore   are   Friendster   and   Facebook,   which   are   utilized   by   mainly   Secondary   School,   Junior   College,   Polytechnic   and   University   students,   though   it   has   also   recently   witnessed   an   influx   of   organizations   creating   a   presence   in   the   online   community  (Wong,  T.,  2007).  As  of  Dec  2008,  Facebook  as  overtaken  Friendster   as  the  top  SNS  in  Singapore  (Hitwise.com,  2008).     Chapter  2:  Literature  review  on  youths  and  their  online  culture   It   is   pertinent   to   discuss   the   demographic   group   of   youths   for   this   study.   The   idea   of   youth   is   a   complex   one   because   there   is   no   general   definition   or   consensus  on  what  youths  encompasses.  The  idea  of  youths  will  be  discussed  in   this   chapter,   along   with   its   relationship   with   the   Internet   and   how   the   idea   of   an   online   culture   is   crucial   to   this   demographic,   which   is   one   of   the   most   active   groups   online   today.   For   the   purpose   of   this   study,   the   terms   “students”,     “youths”   and   “teenage   children”   are   used   interchangeably   to   refer   to   teenagers   of  secondary  school-­‐going  age,  i.e  12  years  to  17  years  old.     2.1  Youths     2.1.1  The  idea  of  a  generation   Although  the  term  youths  was  coined  in  the  1920s  and  later  made  popular  in  the   1940s   by   advertisers,   the   idea   of   youths   should   be   examined   in   the   context   of   generations.   Edmunds   and   Turner   (2002)   provide   the   basis   for   a   sociological   and  historical  theory  of  generations.  They  define  a  generation  as  “an  age  cohort   that   comes   to   have   social   significance   by   virtue   of   constituting   itself   as   a   cultural   23 identity.”  (p.7)  Similarly,  Bordieu  (1993)  argues  that  generations  are  socially  and   culturally  defined  and  produced.     Different   generations   will   have   different   tastes,   orientations,   beliefs   and   dispositions,  which  led  to  the  invention  and  use  of  a  category  like  “Generation  X”   (and   its   subsequent   mutations),   reflecting   both   the   importance   and   complexity   of   age   –based   distinctions   in   a   contemporary   consumer   culture   (Ulrich   &   Harris,   2003).  Therefore,  by  extension,  the  concept  of  youth  is  essentially  and  social  and   historical  construct,  rather  than  a  universal  state  of  being  (Buckingham,  2008).       Besides   world   events   such   as   wars   and   economic   depressions,   the   media   and   consumer   culture   have   played   a   central   role   in   the   defining   and   redefining   of   generational   differences   and   identities   (Buckingham,   2006).   In   fact,   in   attempting  to  escape  the  limitations  of  normative  psychological  accounts,  there   has   been   a   growing   emphasis   on   how   the   media,   and   the   way   media   is   used,   contribute   to   defining   the   meanings   of   age   differences   (Jenkins,   1998;   Buckingham,   2005).   Australian   cultural   theorist   Wark   (1993)   argues   that   “generations  are  not  defined  by  war  or  depression  anymore;  they  are  defined  by   media  culture”  (p.75),  which  is  very  apt  in  today’s  media-­‐heavy  consumerist  post   industrial  economy.       An   indication   that   we   are   in   a   consumerist   rather   than   technology-­‐deterministic   world   today   is   how   for   most   young   people,   technology   today   is   a   relatively   24 marginal   concern.   Most   youth   use   technology   without   being   aware   that   they   are   using  technology.  Very  few  of  them  are  interested  in  technology  in  its  own  right   and   most   are   simply   concerned   about   what   they   can   use   it   for   (Buckingham,   2006;  Herring,  2008).       Technology  provides  new  ways  of  forming  identity.  The  generational  differences   are  seen  to  be  produced  by  technology  rather  than  a  result  of  social,  historical  or   cultural  forces  (Tapscott,  1998).  While  this  may  seem  like  a  sweeping  statement,   it  does  affirm  that  technology  has  an  impact  on  one’s  identity  and  especially  for   today’s   Singaporean   youths,   who   are   digital   natives   and   whose   daily   lives   revolve  around  technology.     2.1.2  Identity  formation  and  negotiation   Identity   is   a   very   broad   and   ambiguous   concept,   yet   it   focuses   attention   on   critical   questions   about   personal   development   and   social   relationships   –   questions   that   are   crucial   for   our   understanding   of   youths’   growth   into   adulthood  and  the  nature  of  their  social  and  cultural  experiences  (Buckingham,   2008).  The  online  platform  provides  youth  today  an  avenue  to  experiment  with   their  identities  online;  this  explains  why  youths  spend  a  lot  of  time  online.     The   notion   that   social   structures   shape   identity   is   at   the   heart   of   sociological   theory   (Agger,   2004).   When   this   concept   is   applied   to   children’s   lives,   they   are   the  subjects  of  a  whole  set  of  social  structures,  some  of  them  at  home,  some  at   school   and   some   at   their   virtual   spaces.   The   interplay   between   each   of   these   25 structures  shapes  the  self  in  various  ways,  and  the  impact  of  each  structure  on   the   other   is   a   dialectic   process   (Thomas,   2007).   It   is   this   interplay   that   may   be   reflected  in  youths’  online  identities.     New   technologies   are   a   good   place   to   start   investigations   on   how   youths   negotiate   their   identities   online.   For   many   youths,   especially   in   industrialized   nations,  digital  media  are  significant  modalities  through  which  they  are  seeking,   consciously  or  unconsciously,  the  answers  to  identity  questions,  questions  which   Buckingham  and  Sefton-­‐Green  (1994)  describe  “the  me  that  is  me”.       Thus,   a   youth’s   identity   online   is   about   the   authoring   of   self   as   a   living-­‐out   of   these   states   of   being,   becoming,   belonging   and   behaving   through   a   range   of   everyday   social   and   discursive   practices   that   are   connected   with   the   body.   Yet   it   is  also  about  a  close  editing  of  self,  the  aspects  of  self  to  be  shared  with  the  public   (Thomas,   2007).   The   reason   why   youths   practice   editing   of   themselves   is   due   to   youths’  digital  productions  are  mostly  viewed  or  consumed  by  youth  audiences,   the   group   who   are   producers   themselves.   They   are   their   own   audience.   There   is   reflexivity   to   this   process,   a   conscious   looking,   not   only   at   their   production   (themselves),   but   also   how   others   view   their   productions   (Weber   &   Mitchell,   2008).       The   formation   of   identity   often   involves   a   process   of   stereotyping   or   cognitive   oversimplification   that   allows   people   to   distinguish   easily   between   self   and   26 other   as   well   as   to   define   themselves   and   their   group   in   positive   ways   (Buckingham,   2008).   Walther   and   et.   al.   (1994)   proposed   a   social   information   processing   theory   which   supports   this,   that   regardless   of   the   medium,   people   experience  the  need  to  reduce  uncertainty  and  increase  affinity.       Goffman   (1959)   makes   a   distinction   between   personal   identity   and   social   identity,   as   though   collective   identifications   or   performances   are   different   and   disparate  from  the  individual  ones.  This  process  of  performance,  interpretation   and   adjustment   is   also   known   as   impression   management,   which   is   part   of   a   larger   process   where   people   try   to   define   a   situation   through   their   behavior   (boyd,   2008;   Stern,   2008).   This   concept   is   relevant   to   youths’   use   of   digital   media,   where   performances   are   necessitated   due   to   the   lack   of   physical   cues   online.  However,  not  only  is  the  online  environment  not  impersonal  due  to  the   lack   of   physical   cues,   it   can   be   creative,   especially   when   people   use   it   to   assert   their  own  identities  and  explore  new  means  of  self-­‐presentation  (Baym,  2002).       In   some   sense,   youth   have   more   control   online   as   they   can   choose   what   information   to   put   forward,   though   once   the   information   is   online,   it   may   be   subject   to   misinterpretation.   Through   their   SNS   profiles,   youths   can   express   certain   aspects   of   their   identity   for   their   peers   to   see   and   interpret.   They   construct  their  profiles  for  their  friends  and  peers  to  view  and  because  there  is  a   link  between  their  online  and  offline  communities,  youths  are  inclined  to  present   the  side  of  themselves  they  believe  will  be  well  received  by  their  peers.     27   It   is   interesting   to   note   though   that   youths,   teenagers   in   particular,   often   fabricate   key   identifying   information   like   name,   age   and   location   to   protect   themselves.   While   parents’   protection   groups   encourage   such   deception   to   protect  children  from  strangers  (Donath  &  boyd,  2004),  many  teenagers  actually   engage  in  this  practice  to  avoid  the  watchful  eyes  of  the  more  tech-­‐savvy  parents   (boyd,   2008).   Teenagers   feel   that   SNS   should   be   their   private   space   online   while   most  parents  disagree  with  this  notion  as  they  believe  that  nothing  posted  online   is  private.  Teenagers  feel  that  just  because  anyone  can  access  their  SNS  site  does   not   mean   that   everyone,   including   parents,   should.   How   are   teenagers   supposed   to  be  “cool”  to  both  their  peers  and  their  parents  simultaneously  on  their  SNS?   (boyd,   2008).   This   is   an   interesting   contention   as   it   indicates   to   some   extent,   youths’  perceptions  of  online  privacy  vis  a  vis  their  parents’  perceptions.       As   SNS   like   Facebook   develop   and   grow,   there   is   a   trend   of   SNS   becoming   communities   of   practice,   which,   according   to   Wenger   and   Synder   (2000),   are   informal   groups   of   people   bound   together   through   a   shared   passion   for   a   joint   enterprise.  This  is  due  to  the  popularity  of  multi-­‐player  social  games  on  SNS  such   as  Restaurant  City  and  Mafia  Wars  on  Facebook,  where  one  can  invite  friends  to   join   the   game   to   help   complete   tasks.   These   communities   of   practice   allow   youths  to  explore  their  identities  not  just  as  individuals,  but  also  their  role  and   status   in   communities,   as   one   of   the   most   important   aspects   in   shaping   online   28 identity   is   related   to   the   sense   of   community   and   belonging   to   the   online   community  (Thomas,  2007).       From   present   literature   on   communities   of   practice,   we   see   how   youths’   technical  skills  are  not  the  only  skills  at  issue  in  these  domestic  communities  of   practice.   Equally   important   to   parents   are   the   emotional   competence   and   vulnerability  of  the  youths  (Holloway  &  Valentine,  2003)  and  how  they  may  be   exploited  while  online.       2.2  Concerns  about  youth  online   Presently,  there  are  two  main  ongoing  discourses  about  youth  online.  Critics  of   digital  technology  view  it  as  threatening,  even  destroying  childhood.  Youths  are   seen  to  not  only  be  more  exposed  and  vulnerable  to  online  pedophiles,  but  also   from  a  range  of  negative  physical  and  psychological  consequences  derived  from   them   using   the   technology   (Healy,   1998;   Armstrong   &   Casement,   2000).   Advocates   of   digital   technology,   on   the   other   hand,   see   it   as   a   tool   to   liberate   youth,  to  bypass  the  influence  of  their  elders  and  create  their  own  autonomous   space   and   forms   of   communication;   which   will   result   in   a   more   open,   democratic,   creative   and   innovation   generation   (Buckingham,   2008).   Parents   tend   to   lean   towards   the   critical   view   of   digital   technology   but   are   also   aware   that   the   technology   is   here   to   stay   and   it   is   to   their   children’s   benefit   to   familiarize  themselves  with  the  technology.       29 Parents  are  keen  to  improve  their  children’s  educational  prospects,  but  are  also   concerned  about  online  dangers  (Turow  &  Nir,  2000;  Livingstone,  2002;  Facer  et   al.,   2003).   Also,   media   attention   today   more   often   alerts   the   public   to   the   potential  risks  and  dangers  of  the  Internet  and  by  association,  SNS;  stimulating   discussions   on   how   to   regulate   or   restrict   children’s   Internet   use   (Livingstone   &   Bober,   2006).   Many   of   these   risks   and   opportunities   are   not   new   to   society,   they   are,  arguably,  more  immediate  and  widespread,  especially  for  children,  than  was   the  case  of  previously  new  media  (Flichy,  2002;  Livingstone,  2002).     The   prevailing   concern   that   parents   have   is   how   Internet   use   may   lead   their   children   to   become   isolated   from   others,   expose   them   to   sexual   and/or   violent   images,  displace  more  worthwhile  activities  and  risk  their  privacy.  At  the  same   time,   most   believe   that   the   Internet   can   help   their   children   do   better   in   school   and  learn  useful  knowledge.  This  is  the  reason  why  they  have  domestic  Internet   access   in   the   first   place   (Turow   &   Nir,   2000;   Livingstone   &   Bovill,   2001;   Buckingham,   2002).   Therefore   a   challenge   faced   by   parents   is   how   to   balance   their   concern   in   implementing   safeguards   for   their   children   online   while   not   depriving  their  children  of  the  advantageous  potential  of  the  Internet.       From   studies   conducted,   parents,   it   appears,   underestimate   the   risks   their   children  are  experiencing  online.  Children,  on  the  other  hand,  underestimate  the   regulatory   practices   their   parents   attempt   to   implement.   Parental   anxieties   tend   towards   being   ill-­‐informed   and   ineffective   in   supporting   regulation.   Children’s   30 enthusiasm   for   the   new   medium   is   resulting   in   some   risky   behaviors   (Livingstone   &   Bober,   2006).   Therefore,   media   scholars   are   trying   to   find   a   middle   ground   where   parents   are   aware   of   the   risks   their   children   are   experiencing   online   without   causing   panic   and   for   children   to   rein   their   enthusiasm  and  to  use  the  technology  responsibly.       2.2.1  Online  sexual  solicitations   Many   studies   have   been   conducted   on   youth   and   online   sexual   solicitations,   as   this   is   a   real   online   danger   that   is   faced   by   youths,   who   may   not   be   equipped   emotionally  to  deal  with  predators  online.       A   study   conducted   in   the   States   in   2008   by   Ybarra   and   Mitchell   indicated   that   15%  of  1588  youths  reported  an  unwanted  sexual  solicitation.  Such  solicitations   are   more   common   in   instant   messaging   and   chat   rooms,   and   harassment   usually   took   place   in   instant   messaging   than   through   SNS.   The   results   of   this   study   corroborated  with  the  Youth  Internet  Safety  Survey  which  also  found  that  25%   of  youths  reportings  an  unwanted  exposure  to  sexual  material.       Possible  repercussions  of  youths  who  received  an  aggressive  sexual  solicitation   were   also   mentioned   in   the   studies.   They   were   almost   2.5   times   as   likely   to   report  experiencing  physical  abuse,  sexual  abuse  or  high  parent  conflict  (Wells  &   Mitchell,   2008).   Most   girls   in   Halloway   and   Valentine’s   2003   study   are   most   likely  to  break  parental  rules  by  talking  to  strangers,  reflecting  their  preference   31 for   using   ICT   for   communication.   This   also   suggests   that   girls   are   more   susceptible  to  online  sexual  solicitations.     2.2.2  Internet  and  health-­related  problems   Internet  use  has  become  an  area  of  concern  by  parents  as  well  as  educators  and   physicians   as   illnesses   associated   with   prolonged   Internet   use   surface.   A   study   conducted   by   Wolak,   Mitchell   and   Finkelhor   (2003)   indicated   that   girls   who   had   high  levels  of  conflict  with  parents  or  were  highly  troubled  were  more  like  than   other  girls  to  have  close  online  relationships,  as  were  boys  who  had  low  levels  of   communication  with  their  parents  or  who  were  highly  troubled,  as  compared  to   other  boys.  Youths  with  these  problems  may  also  be  more  vulnerable  to  online   exploitation  or  other  possible  ill  effects  of  online  relationships.       Another   study   conducted   in   Hong   Kong   indicated   that   heavy   Internet   use   of   more   than   four   hours   a   day   has   also   been   associated   with   lower   likelihood   of   engaging  in  health-­‐promoting  physical  activities  such  as  exercising  and  seeking   medical   care.   Multiple   risk   behaviors   such   as   skipping   meals   and   sleeping   late   have   also   been   related   to   heavy   Internet   use   (Punamaki   and   et.   al.,   2006;   Kim   and   et.   al.,   2009).   The   effects   of   prolonged   Internet   usage   affects   not   just   relationships  and  youths’  mental  health,  it  also  extends  to  their  physical  health.       A   youth-­‐related   Internet   study   conducted   in   the   Netherlands   indicated   that   for   adolescents   who   perceive   low   friendship   quality,   Internet   use   for   communication   purposes   predicted   less   depression   but   Internet   use   for   non-­‐ 32 communicative   purposes   resulted   in   more   depression   and   more   social   anxiety   (Selfhout  and  et.  al.,  2008).  The  implications  for  this  study  involve  not  only  the   impact  of  Internet  usage,  but  also  the  different  motivations  for  Internet  usage.     Another   high-­‐risk   youth   group   is   youth   aggressors/targets   who   are   intense   users   of   the   Internet   and   view   themselves   as   capable   web   users.   Beyond   this,   however,   these   youths   report   significant   psychosocial   challenge,   including   depressive   symptomatology,   problem   behavior,   and   targeting   of   traditional   bullying   (Ybarra   &   Mitchell,   2004).   The   findings   of   this   study   associate   intense   users  of  the  Internet  with  the  lack  in  social  skills.       Chapter  3:  Literature  review  on  SNS   SNS   span   across   different   disciplines   and   fields,   from   technology   to   the   social   sciences   and   they   involve   issues   such   as   online   privacy   and   identity   formation.   Therefore   the   literature   review   for   SNS   also   reflect   the   multi-­‐disciplinary   nature   of   SNS,   from   social   sciences   to   computer   science   to   marketing   and   privacy   and   surveillance.     3.1  SNS  research  to  date   Given   the   multi-­‐disciplinary   nature   of   SNS,   the   areas   of   research   associated   with   SNS   traverse   the   boundaries   of   social   sciences,   humanities,   law,   business,   communications,   and   computer   sciences.   The   surge   in   SNS-­‐related   research   conducted   in   the   last   three   years   has   resulted   in   a   plethora   of   materials   for   references   as   well   as   identifying   gaps   which   have   yet   to   be   addressed   by   33 academic   research.   Therefore   to   come   up   with   a   comprehensive   framework   involving   online   privacy,   there   is   a   need   to   look   beyond   just   privacy   and   SNS   literature  but  also  other  literature  involving  SNS.     So   far,   areas   of   research   associated   with   SNS   and   social   sciences   include   social   capital  (Wellman,  et  al;  2001;  Ellison,  Steinfield  &  Lampe,  2006;  Valenzuela,  Park   &   Kee,   2008),   management   and   presentation   of   virtual   identities   (Marwick,   2005;   Donath   &   boyd,   2004;   Hewitt   &   Forte,   2006;   DiMicco   &   Millen,   2007;   Gosling,   Gaddis   &   Vazire,   2007;   Booth,   2008;   Bryne,   2008;   Evans,   Gosling   &   Carroll,   2008;   Geyer,   et   al.,   2008;   Papacharissi,   2009;   Walther.   Et   al.,   2009),   music   culture   and   SNS   (Beer,   2008;   Suhr,   2009)   the   concept   of   community   in   SNS  (Choi,  2006;  Fono  &  Raynes,  2006;  Dwyer,  2007;  Immorlica,  2007;  Yuta,  Ono   &   Fujiwara,   2007;   boyd,   2008;   Hancock,   Toma   &   Fenner,   2008;   Ryberg   &   Christiansen,   2008;   Chun,   et   al.,   2008;   Papacharissi,   2009)     and   politics   and   civic   engagement  (Gueorguieva,  2007;  Harris,  2008)     Besides   the   social   sciences,   articles   from   computing   sciences   and   technology   have   produced   papers   on   the   different   user   groups   on   SNS   (Valkenburg,   Peter   &   Schouten,   2006;   Hargittai,   2007;   Humphreys,   2007;   Lee   &   Bruckman,   2007;   Arjan,  Pfeil  &  Zaphiris,  2008;  Chapman  &  LaHav,  2008;  Murthy,  2008),  the  use  of   SNS  for  measurement  and  analysis  (Ahn,  et  al.,  2007;  Hsu,  et  al.,  2007;  Mislove,   Gummadi   &   Drushel,   2007;   Mislove,   et.   al.,   2007;   Das,   et   al.,   2008;   Jones,   et   al.,   2008;   Murthy,   2008;   Wilson   &   Nicholas,   2008)   ,   the   affordances   of   SNS   34 technology   (Immorlica,   et   al.,   2007;   Felt,   et   al.,   2008;   Gjoka,   et   al.,   2008;   Nazir,   Raza   &   Chuah,   2008)   as   well   as   papers   on   the   network   structure   of   SNS   (Downes,   2005;   Backstrom,   et   al.,   2006;   Backstrom,   Dwork   &   Klienberg,   2007;   Golder,   Wilkinson   &   Huberman,   2007;   Hsu,   et   al.,   2007;   Lampe,   Ellison   &   Steinfield,   2007;   Schiller   &   Mandviwalla,   2007;   Snyder,   Carpenter   &   Slauson,   2007;  Trusov,  Bucklin  &  Pauwels,  2007;  boyd,  2008).       The  affordances  of  SNS  technology  have  also  been  covered  in  specific  industries   such   as   healthcare   (Cain,   2007),   education   and   library   sciences   (Tosh   &   Werdmuller,   2004;   Chu   &   Meulemans,   2007;   Goodwin,   2007;   Ryberg   &   Christiansen,  2008;  King  &  Brown,  2009),  affirming  the  ubiquity  of  SNS.     Areas   of   research   from   the   domains   of   law   and   business   cover   advertising   (Bradford,   2008;   Trusov,   Bucklin   &   Pauwels,   2008),   business   online   communities   (O’Muruchu,   Bresline   &   Decker,   2004),   incorporating   SNS   into   business   strategies   (Enders,   et   al,   2008),   intellectual   property   rights   applied   to   SNS   (Newkirk   &   Viehauser,   2008;   Latham,   Butzer   &   Brown,   2008;   Sithigh,   2008)   and   privacy,   information   disclosure   and   trust   concerns   (boyd,   2004,   2006;   Andrejevic,  2005;  Gross  &  Acquisit,  2005;  Hodge,  2006;  Stutzman,  2006;  Christ,   Berges  &  Trevino,  2007;  Dwyer,  Hiltz  &  Passerini,  2007;  Strater  &  Richter,  2007;   Vie,  2007;  boyd,  2008;  De  Souza  &  Dick,  2008;  Genova,  2009).     35 From   the   literature   review   on   SNS,   many   articles   and   papers   are   found   to   be   inter-­‐disciplinary,  drawing  on  the  specialized  knowledge  of  different  fields.       3.1.1  Virtual  communities  and  the  network  effect   Rheingold   (2000)   explains   virtual   communities   as   social   aggregations   that   emerge  from  the  Internet  when  enough  people  carry  on  public  discussions  long   enough,  with  sufficient  human  feelings,  to  form  webs  of  personal  relationships  in   cyberspace.   boyd   and   Heer   (2006)   studied   the   network   effect   and   found   that   personal  connections  in  SNS  are  homogenous  in  nature.  When  people  socialize,   they   are   attracted   to   others   who   are   similar   to   them,   thus   reinforcing   the   idea   of   homophily  being  present  in  SNS  connections  (Turchi,  2007).       3.1.2  Community,  culture  and  civic  engagement   Given   the   affordances   of   SNS,   a   platform   that   makes   it   easier   for   people   to   connect   and   interact,   the   areas   of   community,   culture   and   civic   engagement   make   for   relevant   research   topics.   This   is   because   SNS   being   an   online   community  phenomenon  which  has  only  gained  prominence  in  recent  years  has   a   culture   is   different   from   other   online   cultures   due   to   the   activities   and   its   users;   the   reach   of   SNS   allows   certain   demographics   of   the   population   to   promote   certain   civic   causes   and   in   the   course   of   doing   so,   promoting   civic   engagement.  The  differences  among  the  various  SNS  have  propelled  studies  like   the  one  conducted  by  O’Murchu,  Breslin  and  Decker  in  2004,  which  classified  the   various  SNS  and  evaluated  their  features  and  functionality.       36 A   qualitative   study   that   illustrated   the   interdependency   and   interactions   of   members   in   a   SNS   was   conducted   to   explore   how   subjects   use   social   networking   sites  and  instant  messenger  to  engage  in  interpersonal  relationships.  The  results   indicate   that   attitudes   towards   privacy   and   impression   management,   when   mediated   by   technology,   translate   into   social   interactions   (Dwyer,   2007).   Therefore   while   online   communities   such   as   SNS   are   mediated   by   technology,   individual   members’   values   are   also   vital   in   determining   the   types   of   interaction   that  take  place.       Media   scholars   have   also   expressed   concern   over   how   the   different   values   and   cultures  in  SNS  might  be  overshadowed  by  overemphasizing  on  the  affordances   of  SNS  technology  (Suhr,  2009).  This  is  a  valid  point,  especially  as  offline  values   might   be   transferred   online.   The   different   values   and   cultures   in   SNS   will   become   more   apparent   over   time,   as   SNS   is   a   participatory   medium.   This   will   affect  the  ways  that  users  use  SNS.       3.1.3  Social  Capital   SNS   are   distinguished   from   the   first   wave   of   virtual   community   websites   as   they   allow   for   the   maintenance   of   existing   social   ties   and   formation   of   new   connections.   A   characteristic   of   the   early   research   on   CMC   and   virtual   communities   in   particular   is   the   assumption   that   individuals   using   this   system   will   be   connecting   to   those   outside   their   pre-­‐existing   social   group   or   location,   which   liberates   individuals   to   form   communities   around   shared   interests,   as   opposed  to  shared  geography  (Wellman,  1996).     37   The   relationships   present   in   online   communities   are   instances   of   what   are   known  as  "weak  ties".  Weak  ties  are  "are  acquaintances  who  are  not  part  of  your   closest   social   circle,   and   as   such   have   the   power   to   act   as   a   bridge   between   your   social  cluster  and  someone  else's"  (Cervini,  2003).  Weak  ties  created  at  random   in   this   way   lead   to   "supernodes",   individuals   with   many   more   ties   than   other   resources.     Some  preliminary  empirical  studies  have  been  conducted  to  measure  the  extent   to   which   users   use   SNS   to   maintain   existing   ties   or   to   form   new   ones.   Facebook-­‐ specific   studies   indicate   that   certain   kinds   of   Facebook   use   appear   to   facilitate   maintenance   and   formation   of   social   capital   of   all   kinds.   A   study   conducted   by   Ellison,   Steinfield   and   Lampe   (2006)   indicates   that   Facebook   is   used   by   its   users   to  make  new  friends,  as  well  as  keep  in  touch  with  old  acquaintances.       3.1.4  Identity,  self-­presentation  and  contextualizing  in  SNS   In   her   ethnographic   work   examining   self-­‐presentation   and   social   connections   among   Friendster   users,   boyd   (2004)   notes   that   users   have   a   variety   of   motivations  for  using  the  website,  including  connecting  with  old  friends,  meeting   new   acquaintances,   dating   and   furthering   professional   networks.   In   one   of   the   few   studies   to   examine   this   new   form   of   online   communication,   Donath   and   boyd  (2004)  point  out  that  one  of  the  chief  hallmarks  of  these  sites  is  that  links   between   individuals   are   “mutual,   public,   unnuanced   and   decontextualised”   (p.   38 72).   In   the   SNS   examined,   public   displays   of   connections   serve   to   warrant,   or   indicate  the  unreliability  of  the  information  provided  in  the  online  profiles.       Along   with   the   features   of   online   communities,   members   of   SNS   also   have   to   create  and  interpret  context,  and  learn  now  to  “converse  through  profiles”  (boyd   &   Heer,   2006,   p.5).   Due   to   the   decontextualised   nature   of   the   online   virtual   environment,  members  rely  on  the  interactions  with  other  members  and  digital   bodies,  which  are  artifacts  of  digital  performance,  in  order  to  create  the  context   of  a  digital  environment.       Network  effect  is  also  influential  in  this  context  as  members  of  SNS  usually  join   after   receiving   multiple   invitations   from   different   friends.   boyd’s   study   also   concludes  that  SNS  such  as  Friendster  and  MySpace  support  homophily,  where   members   are   generally   from   the   same   sub-­‐groups   and   also   that   internal   homophily   is   reinforced   when   members   invite   their   friends   whom   they   think   will   fit   in   with   the   image   they   want   to   portray   in   the   online   social   networking   websites,   people   similar   to   themselves   (Turchi,   2007).   The   concept   of   negotiating  an  unknown  audience  is  an  important  one  that  affects  how  members   of  SNS  decide  to  portray  themselves  to  members  of  the  different  social  groups.     According  to  boyd  (2006),  the  process  of  developing  and  interpreting  context  is   simultaneously   a   foundation   for   communication   and   a   conversation   itself.   Conversations   occur   when   people   engage   others.   By   altering   their   profiles   to   39 engage   other   users,   SNS   users   are   setting   the   platform   for   conversation   and   communicating.  Profiles  are  effectively  public  performances  that  are  limited  by   the  level  of  privacy  set  by  the  users;  they  are  used  both  as  conversation  starters   as  well  as  the  conversation  among  users.  Also,  other  parts  of  the  profile,  such  as   the  comments  written  by  friends  and  posted  publicly  for  other  members  to  view   and  the  use  of  photographs  and  videos  also  feature  prominently  in  SNS  such  as   Facebook.  These  different  elements  make  up  one’s  profile  online  and  the  sum  of   the   information   of   these   tools   forms   the   basis   of   communication   and   conversation  in  SNS.     For  youths,  participating  in  SNS  helps  in  strengthening  their  cultural  identities,   teaching  them  to  navigate  both  the  public  and  private  dimensions  of  their  racial   lives.   Much   like   the   world   offline,   participating   in   online   cultural   communities   help  youths  develop  a  healthy  sense  of  racial  identity,  what  psychologists  argue   is  necessary  to  resist  the  effects  of  racism  (Bryne,  2008).  Another  study  revealed   that   while   younger   teenagers   relish   the   opportunities   to   recreate   continuously   a   highly-­‐decorated,   stylistically-­‐elaborate   identity,   older   teenagers   favour   a   plain   aesthetic   that   foregrounds   their   links   to   others,   thus   expressing   a   notion   of   identity   lived   through   authentic   relationships   (Livingstone,   2008).   Such   findings   aid  in  understanding  why  youths  portray  themselves  the  way  they  do  in  SNS.     Impression   management   is   very   much   used   in   SNS.   Some   studies   have   lent   credence   to   the   importance   of   impression   management   and   how   it   consciously   40 being   applied   in   SNS.   Evans,   Gosling   and   Carroll   (2008)   demonstrated   that   various   profile   elements   are   effective   in   conveying   information   about   the   personality  of  the  profile  owner  and  that  several  specific  elements  of  profiles  are   associated   with   increased   or   diminished   levels   of   rater-­‐target   impression   agreement.   How   users   manage   self   presentation   while   maintaining   social   relationships   in   heterogeneous   networks   (DiMicco   &   Millen,   2007)   is   thus   an   important  factor  to  consider  when  discussing  impression  management  in  SNS.     Profile  elements  are  important  in  SNS  as  they  present  an  image  to  the  people  in   their  Friends  List,  which  may  consist  of  a  mix  of  family  members,  classmates  and   colleagues.  The  emphasis  of  some  profile  elements  has  been  examined  in  a  study   on  narcissism.  It  was  found  that  narcissism  is  manifested  in  SNS  and  is  measured   by  the  quantity  of  social  interaction;  main  photo  self-­‐  promotion  and  main  photo   attractiveness   (Buffardi   &   Campbell,   2008).   Some   profile   elements   may   predict   friendship   links   (Lampe,   Ellison   &   Steinfield,   2006)   and   this   is   significant   because   how   the   users   perceive   themselves   will   be   very   likely   how   their   close   acquaintances  view  them  (Gosling,  Gaddis  &  Vazaire,  2007).       Therefore,   opinions   of   friends   matter   in   a   SNS   environment;   users   depend   on   SNS   for   recommendations   and   validating   of   opinions   (Geyer,   et   al.,   2008).   A   study   conducted   supports   this,   revealing   that   friends’   comments   overrode   self-­‐ comments,  supporting  warranting  theory  exclusively.  This  will  have  implications   on   the   potential   effects   of   social   comments   on   a   variety   of   new   information   41 forms  (Walther,  et  al.,  2009).  Emphasizing  certain  profile  elements  and  revealing   certain  personal  information  help  shape  the  opinions  of  other  users  of  oneself  in   an   SNS   environment,   which   may   explain   why   some   users   spend   more   customizing  their  SNS  profiles.     From   the   literature   review   conducted   thus   far,   we   can   surmise   that   there   are   existing  areas  of  research  about  SNS  although  their  findings  may  be  preliminary.   However,  SNS  may  be  more  interdisciplinary  than  the  other  areas  of  research  for   CMC   as   it   is   an   amalgamation   of   the   various   applications   of   CMC.   This   in   turn   translates   into   opportunities   to   address   the   gaps   in   terms   of   research.   Furthermore,   the   large   number   of   highly   embedded   users,   a   unique-­‐ geographically-­‐bound   target   audience,   high   visibility   of   the   technology,   and   widespread   public   concern   regarding   the   use   and   abuse   of   SNS,   merits   further   research  to  be  conducted  on  this  phenomenon.     3.2  Framing  policy-­relevant  research   In   the   context   of   new   media   research,   while   particular   systems   come   and   go,   how   youths   engage   through   SNS   will   provide   long   lasting   insights   into   identity   formation,   status   negotiation   and   peer   to   peer   sociality   (boyd,   2008).   This   is   because   SNS   has   combined   elements   of   the   Internet   previously   studied   in   singularity   on   one   platform   while   introducing   new   elements   of   Web   2.0.   However,   this   is   not   to   say   that   researching   on   SNS   is   without   its   challenges,   especially   when   looking   at   youths   and   SNS,   an   area   with   potential   policy   relevancy.     42   The  idea  of  responsibility  have  caused  concern;  not  only  how  to  apportion  such   responsibilities,  but  also  how  to  ensure  coordination  across  them.  Within  this,  a   key   point   of   contestation   is   how   far   to   devolve   responsibility   from   the   state   to   the   industry   (via   self   regulation)   or   to   the   individual   citizen   (mainly   parents)   (Livingstone  &  Bober,  2006).  To  answer  this,  research  needs  to  be  conducted  to   review   the   current   situation   now   and   whether   the   Singapore   government’s   current   light   touch   approach   (MDA,   2010)   is   enough   or   if   greater   enforcement   and  policing  is  required.       While   conducting   research,   caution   is   needed   to   prevent   supporting   the   relentlessly  optimistic  view  of  some  literature  that  ignores  the  downsides  of  the   online   medium.   Also,   a   realistic   understanding   of   youths   is   required,   to   avoid   assuming   a   wholly   positive   or   negative   view   of   their   critical   intelligence   and   social   responsibility.   The   anxieties   of   some   parents   about   what   their   teenage   children  may  do  or  encounter  online  are  exacerbated  by  the  parents’  own  lack  of   ICT   skills   (Holloway   &   Valentine,   2003).   This   needs   to   be   acknowledged   to   prevent  falling  into  the  fallacy  of  cyberpanic.       There   may   be   some   dissonance   between   youths’   perceived   danger   online   and   their  parents,  caregivers  and  educators  (Herring,  2008).  This  suggests  that  while   looking   at   the   responses   of   the   majority   of   youths,   the   perceptions   of   the   43 minority   youths,   while   constituting   a   small   number,   may   warrant   a   close   inspection  as  well.             Chapter  4:  Privacy,  social  network  theory  and  information  disclosure   Based  on  the  literature  review  thus  far  on  youths  and  SNS,  it  can  be  gleaned  that   youths’  safety  on  SNS  is  of  concern  to  parents,  educators  and  the  governments,   who   are   concerned   that   youths   may   be   revealing   too   much   of   their   personal   information   online.   With   the   rising   adoption   of   emerging   technologies   such   as   SNS,   privacy   is   recognized   as   a   growing   concern,   but   privacy   studies   are   generally  limited  by  the  lack  of  conceptual  frameworks  (Palen  &  Dourish,  2003).     4.1  Concept  of  privacy     Westin   (1967)   posits   that   people   have   a   need   for   privacy,   which   together   with   other  needs,  allow  us  to  lead  well-­‐adjusted  lives  with  others.  Westin’s  concept  of   privacy   is   both   dynamic   (continually   adjusted   to   suit   momentary   needs   and   role   requirements)   as   well   as   non-­‐monotonic   (there   can   be   too   little,   too   much   or   sufficient   privacy).   It   is   important   to   note   that   Westin’s   concept   of   privacy   is   neither   a   self-­‐sufficient   state   nor   an   end   in   itself,   but   rather,   it   is   a   means   of   achieving   the   overall   end   of   self-­‐realization.   Westin’s   theory   suggests   four   functions  of  privacy  –  solitude,  intimacy,  anonymity  and  reserve  (1967).       An   indicator   of   Westin’s   influence   in   his   contribution   to   privacy   theory   is   his   development   of   scales   to   measure   privacy.   The   robustness   of   Westin’s   insight   44 into   the   culturally   universal   aspects   of   privacy   and   the   meaningfulness   of   the   concept   of   privacy   in   describing   behavior   has   received   supported   from   other   researchers   (Altman,   1977;   Klopfer   &Rubenstein,   1977).   Altman   (1975)   value-­‐ adds  to  the  discussion  of  privacy  theory  by  explaining  the  concept  of  privacy  as  a   process  of  regulating  levels  of  social  interaction.       Both   Altman   and   Westin   take   into   account   how   individuals   and   groups   control   access   to   themselves;   that   privacy   is   a   dynamic   concept.   They   also   agree   that   privacy   can   take   on   various   forms   that   are   culturally   specific.   The   difference   between  Altman’s  and  Westin’s  theories  on  privacy  lies  in  how  Altman’s  theory   is   relatively   inclusive   of   the   privacy   phenomena   while   Westin’s   theory   focuses   more  on  information  privacy.  As  this  study  pertains  to  information  disclosure  on   Facebook,  Westin’s  privacy  measures  are  arguably  more  relevant  and  applicable.       On  a  psychological  level,  privacy  provides  opportunities  for  self-­‐exploration  and   experimentation,   which   aids   in   the   development   of   individuality   (Westin,   1967).   It   provides   experiences   which   support   normal   psychological   functioning   of   stable   interpersonal   relationships   as   well   as   personal   development.   When   privacy  is  invaded  or  violated,  it  is  lost.  Invasions  and  violations  of  privacy  may   result   in   one’s   personal   information   ending   up   in   the   wrong   hands.   The   detriment   incurred   varies,   depending   on   the   content   of   the   information   (Margulis,   1979).   Individuals   who   have   lost   their   privacy   may   face   stigmatization,   where   they   are   accorded   lower   status   and   face   discrimination   45 and  prejudice  (Crocker,  Major  &  Steele,  1998).  Therefore  the  concept  of  privacy   is  intricately  linked  to  information  disclosure.       Privacy,   traditionally   defined   as,   the   ‘interest   individuals   have   in   sustaining   personal   space   free   from   interference   by   other   people   and   organizations’   (Tavani,  1999),  has  attracted  many  theories  and  definitions  in  the  online  context.   Such  elastic  and  sometimes  vague  definitions  stem  from  the  increased  need  for   disclosure  online  due  to  the  nature  of  the  Internet  and  have  raised  a  number  of   privacy  concerns     Westin  conducted  surveys  in  the  1980s,  which  found  that  the  public’s  concerns   about  privacy  threats  have  increased  dramatically  since  the  1960s,  with  almost   half  of  the  survey  respondents  reporting  that  by  the  end  of  the  decade  that  they   were   “very   concerned   about   threats   to   their   personal   privacy.”   Westin   then   classified  his  survey  respondents  into  three  categories:  privacy  fundamentalists   (people   who   are   very   concerned   about   their   privacy);   privacy   pragmatists   (people  who  are  concerned  about  their  privacy  but  are  willing  to  trade  some  of  it   for   something   beneficial)   and   privacy   unconcerned   (people   who   are   unconcerned  about  threats  to  their  privacy)  (Kamaraguru  &  Cranor  2005).       By   2003,   the   number   of   privacy   pragmatists   had   risen   by   10   percent   to   64   percent   of   those   surveyed.   At   the   same   time,   privacy   unconcerneds   dropped   from   22   percent   to   10   percent   (Taylor,   2003).   This   shift   towards   privacy   46 pragmatism   may   reflect   a   paradigm   shift   in   privacy   perceptions   and   warrants   further   research,   especially   for   the   online   environment,   where   tradeoffs   for   privacy  may  come  in  various  forms.     4.2  Social  network  theory  and  privacy   For   this   study,   the   concept   of   privacy   is   studied   in   the   context   of   the   social   network  theory.  The  relationship  between  privacy  and  social  network  is  multi-­‐ faceted.   Sometimes,   we   want   our   information   to   be   known   by   a   small   circle   of   close   friends   and   not   by   strangers;   under   other   circumstances   we   reveal   personal  information  to  anonymous  strangers,  but  not  to  close  friends.     Previous   social   network   studies   touched   upon   the   relevance   of   relations   of   different  depths  and  strengths  in  social  network  (Granovetter,  1973;  1983)  and   the  importance  of  weak  ties  in  the  flow  of  information  across  different  nodes  in  a   network.  Network  theory  has  also  been  used  to  explore  how  distant  nodes  can   get   interconnected   through   relatively   few   random   ties   (Milgram,   1967,1977;   Watts,  2003).  The  application  of  social  network  theory  to  information  disclosure,   and   by   association,   privacy   choices   in   online   social   networks,   indicates   differences  between  offline  and  online  social  networks.       Offline   social   networks   are   made   up   of   weak   or   strong   ties,   which   are   on   a   continuum   in   terms   of   how   close   and   intimate   the   relationships   are.   Online   social   networks   break   down   the   nuanced   offline   connections   to   simplistic   online   47 relationships   –   one   is   either   a   friend   or   not   (boyd,   2004).   The   paradigm   of   friendships   changes   online,   where   thousands   of   SNS   users   may   be   classified   as   friends  of  friends  and  have  access  one’s  personal  information.  This  results  in  an   imaginary  community  of  online  social  networks  (Anderson,  1983).       Online   social   networks   are   also   more   leveled,   as   the   same   information   is   accessible   to   more   friends   whom   one   is   close   to   at   various   levels   but   such   nuances  are  not  explicated  online.  This  contributes  to  a  paradox  when  it  comes   to   privacy.   While   privacy   is   conducive   and   necessary   for   intimacy   (Gerstein,   1984),   intimacy   includes   the   revealing   of   private   information   to   some   but   not   to   others,  trust  decreases  within  an  online  social  network.  Intimacy  online  refers  to   the   sharing   of   personal   information   with   large   numbers   of   offline   friends   and   strangers  (Gross  &  Acquisiti,  2005).  Thus,  the  chances  for  meaningful  interaction   are   mildly   augmented   online,   while   the   potential   to   access   the   information   of   others  is  significantly  increased.       Therefore,   online   social   networks   have   a   significant   impact   on   privacy,   as   the   information  flows  amongst  the  nodes  may  make  our  offline  personal  information   accessible  to  more  people  whom  we  are  not  close  to  and  whom  we  may  not  want   to  share  such  personal  information  with.       4.3  Online  information  disclosure  and  privacy   An  area  of  concern  for  parents  and  educators  is  the  level  of  personal  information   48 that   youths   disclose   online,   which   is   related   to   youths’   perceptions   of   online   privacy.  While  youths  share,  and  SNS  encourages  sharing  information  on  many   levels   and   many   forms,   perhaps   more   thought   should   be   given   to   how   such   personal   information   might   be   used.   This   concern   has   received   considerable   coverage   in   the   media,   with   cases   such   as   US   police   authorities   charging   three   men   for   sexually   assaulting   teenagers   they   found   through   MySpace   (Stafford,   2006),  which  raises  further  concerns  about  the  vulnerability  of  youths  online.     In   response   to   this   general   concern,   some   studies   have   examined   information   disclosure   in   SNS.   In   the   context   of   this   study,   information   disclosure   is   the   amount   (quantity)   and   degree   of   sensitive   information   released   by   individual   users   about   themselves   (De   Souza,   2009).   The   disclosure   of   personal   information  considers  how  online  social  connections  are  much  more  lax  in  this   aspect  than  offline  (Gross  &  Acquisti,  2005).  Personal  and  sensitive  information   is   often   publicly   provided   to   the   nodes   in   networks,   to   people   who   are   barely   friends.       Huffaker  and  Calvert  ‘s  2005  study  also  found  that  teenage  ‘bloggers’  revealed  a   considerable   amount   of   personal   information.   This   included   first   name   (70%),   age  (67%)  and  contact  information  (61%),  in  the  form  of  email  address,  instant   messenger   user   name   or   a   link   to   a   personal   web   page.   Less   disclosed   information   included   birth   date   (39%)   and   full   name   (20%).   Relationship   information  was  also  provided  in  49%  of  blogs.   49   Several   reasons   have   been   offered   as   to   why   users   reveal   information   about   themselves   online.   One   reason   is   signaling   (providing   selective   information   to   present  oneself  in  a  positive  light),  and  some  SNS  users  view  the  benefit  of  this   outweighing   the   costs   of   possible   privacy   invasions   (Donath   &   boyd,   2004).   Some  Facebook  youth  users  may  share  certain  personal  information  to  create  a   particular  online  image.       Another   reason   for   personal   information   disclosure   raised   in   the   literature   is   peer   pressure   or   herding   behaviour.   Govani   and   Pashley   (2006)   suggested   youths’   peers   and   friends   online   share   certain   types   of   information   that   the   other  youths  may  feel  obligated  to  do  so  as  well.       However,   not   all   literature   points   towards   youths   revealing   too   much   of   their   personal   information   online,   thus   exposing   themselves   to   danger.   An   extensive   content   analysis   of   MySpace   profile   pages   revealed   that   the   problem   of   personal   information   disclosure   on   SNS   may   not   be   as   widespread   as   many   assume   and   that   the   majority   of   adolescents   are   using   SNS   responsibly   (Hinduja   &   Patchin,   2008).  Also,  many  of  the  youths’  close  online  relationships  are  with  members  of   family   or   friends   (Wolak,   Mitchell   &   Finkelhor,   2002).   In   fact,   most   youths   are   more  concerned  about  customizing  and  making  their  SNS  profiles  attractive  than   revealing  of  their  personal  information.  (Livingstone,  2008).       50 So   far,   while   mixed,   the   results   for   online   personal   information   disclosure   for   SNS  indicate  that  most  youths  are  using  SNS  responsibly  and  are  aware  of  the  its   privacy  settings.     4.4  SNS  and  privacy   Stranger  danger  is  very  probable  on  some  SNS,  given  that  even  non-­‐users  of  SNS   are   able   to   search   and   view   profiles   of   some   SNS   users   who   have   set   privacy   viewing   settings   to   public   instead   of   ‘friends-­‐only’.   As   younger   and   younger   children   take   up   the   use   of   these   sites,   there   have   been   some   attempts   to   improve  privacy.  For  example  in  Facebook,  youths  with  ages  set  at  14–15  years   have  a  default  setting  of  private  (only  online  friends  can  view  this).       Other  safeguards  employed  by  SNS  such  as  MySpace  include  how  users  over  18   are  unable  to  add  users  whose  ages  are  set  at  14–15  years  as  friends  unless  they   know  the  user’s  full  name  or  email  address.  However,  youths  do  lie  about  their   age  to  bypass  restrictions  and  there  is  no  verification  procedure  by  MySpace  to   ensure  the  true  ages  of  its  users.     The   implications   on   privacy   associated   with   online   social   networking   depend   on   how   the   information   revealed   online   allows   for   one   to   be   identified,   the   information’s  possible  recipients,  and  possible  uses  of  the  information.  Even  SNS   that   do   not   expose   identities   may   provide   enough   information   to   identify   the   profile’s  owner.  Information  revelation  can  thus  work  in  two  ways:  by  allowing   51 others  to  identify  a  pseudonymous  profile  through  previous  knowledge  of  one’s   characteristics   or   traits;   or   by   allowing   inference   of   previously   unknown   characteristics  or  traits  (Gross  &  Acquisiti,  2005).       Vie  (2007)  posits  that  youths  may  feel  a  false  sense  of  security  about  their  online   personae,   leading   them   to   portray   themselves   online   in   ways   that   inaccurately   represent   their   offline   selves,   which   may   incur   serious   repercussions.     Vie’s   proposal   of   familiarizing   parents   and   educators   with   SNS   to   help   youths   understand  the  implications  of  their  SNS  use  is  also  echoed  by  De  souza  and  Dick   (2008).     Another  perceived  perpetrator  of  privacy  risks  is  SNS  such  as  Facebook  exposing   user   data   to   third-­‐party   developers   (Strater   &   Richter,   2007;   Felt   &   Evans,   2008).   More   often   than   not,   users   of   SNS   do   not   read   the   privacy   policy   when   they   sign   up.   A   balance   needs   to   be   struck   between   protecting   the   privacy   of   the   SNS  users  and  not  stifling  the  creativity  and  freedom  of  the  third  party  and  SNS   developers  (Sithigh,  2008).         Therefore,   while   it   is   pertinent   to   identify   the   privacy,   surveillance   and   legal   issues  that  are  SNS  related,  we  also  need  to  understand  that  the  cause  of  concern   of   the   violation   of   privacy   is   the   feeling   of   being   exposed   and   invaded   (boyd,   2008).   This   feeling   may   be   a   price   that   we   have   to   pay   to   enjoy   social   convergence.   52   4.4.1  SNS  privacy  policies  and  settings   When   registering   with   Facebook   or   MySpace,   users   must   agree   to   the   terms   of   service   and   privacy   policies   when   setting   up   their   online   profile.   These   terms   include  how  and  when  their  profile  information  is  collected,  how  their  usage  is   tracked   and   how   SNS   use   the   profile   information   collected   (Metzger,   2004).   These   privacy   policies   also   inform   how   other   users   can   view   our   profiles   and   when   and   how   the   SNS   can   disclose   information   to   a   third   party.   The   privacy   policies   are   mandatory   and   must   be   accepted   while   registering   for   the   SNS.     Different   SNS   also   have   different   policies   about   their   users’   default   profile   privacy  settings.  Facebook’s  default  settings  allow  for  profiles  to  only  be  viewed   by  registered  Facebook  users.     Facebook’s  privacy  settings  also  allow  for  users  to  change  their  default  settings   to  limit  the  viewing  of  their  profiles,  or  certain  aspects  of  their  profiles,  resulting   in  different  users  having  access  to  limited  parts  of  their  profiles.  When  users  use   this   function,   they   ensure   that   only   users   whom   they   accept   as   friends   will   be   allowed   to   view   their   profiles   and   how   different   users   have   different   access   to   different  aspects  of  their  personal  information.  MySpace’s  default  settings  allow   all   other   registered   users   to   view   the   profiles   of   others.   However,   like   Facebook,   users   are   allowed   to   change   their   settings   so   that   only   their   friends   can   see   their   profiles.  This  has  implications  for  how  youths  set  their  Facebook  privacy  settings   as  well  as  the  types  of  personal  information  youths  disclose  online.   53 4.5  Parents  and  online  privacy     Unlike   their   youths,   parents   are   mostly   not   digital   natives.   Thus,   they   may   be   unfamiliar   with   the   workings   of   SNS   and   are   unaware   of   their   children’s   activities  online.  Parents  may  also  be  unaware  of  the  actual  risks  in  SNS  even  if   they   are   aware   of   the   activities   their   youths   are   engaged   in   online.   Most   of   the   literature   supports   greater   involvement   on   the   part   of   parents   in   monitoring   their  youths’  activities  online  (Livingstone  &  Bovill,  2001).     Parents   may   not   be   paying   sufficient   attention   to   what   their   youths   are   doing   online,   for   a   number   of   reasons.   Firstly,   parents   may   lack   the   technological   knowledge   and   technical   skills   to   provide   proper   supervision   (Wallace,   1999;   Livingstone  &  Bovill,  2001;  Davidson  &  Martellozzo,  2005).  Secondly,  they  may   choose  to  respect  their  youths’  privacy  online,  failing  to  recognise  that  SNS  are   actually  public  domains.  Thirdly,  they  are  simply  unaware  of  the  related  dangers   (Willard,  2007).  Therefore,  it  is  not  necessarily  a  case  of  apathy  from  the  parents,   but   rather,   they   may   not   know   where   to   begin   to   guide   their   youths   on   online   privacy.   Parents   may   thus   end   up   developing   a   negative   impression   of   the   personal   information   sharing   their   youths   conduct   online,   thinking   that   their   children   are   ignorant   of   the   risks,   do   not   care   about   privacy   or   display   poor   judgment  (Abril,  2008).     Understanding  how  SNS  are  utilized  by  youths  is  an  area  that  behooves  further   research.   The   use   of   SNS   occupies   a   significant   amount   of   youths’   time,   is   54 ubiquitous,   rapidly   expanding   and   are   used   for   various   purposes.   This   has   implications   for   youths’   levels   of   personal   information   disclosure   online   and   their  online  privacy  perceptions  as  they  are  already  very  much  immersed  in  the   online  environment.  This  study  attempts  to  provide  some  information  on  youths’   SNS  behavior  that  might  be  of  heuristic  value  to  educators  and  parents.     4.6  Youths  and  online  privacy   Youths   today   are   digital   natives   who   are   adept   with,   but   are   at   the   same   time   vulnerable   to   the   risks   posed   by   new   technologies.   Youths   who   are   online   continue   to   reveal   personal   information,   despite   privacy   groups’   advice   on   not   revealing   personal   details   to   strangers   or   new   online   friends   (McCandlish,   2002;   Govani  &  Pashley,  2006).     It   is   postulated   that   youths   experience   a   privacy   paradox,   where   they   freely   provide  their  personal  information  online  but  are  surprised  when  their  parents   read   the   information   they   post   online   (Barnes,   2006).   Studies   have   shown   that   youths’   disclosure   online   is   significantly   predicated   on   the   need   to   be   popular   (Christofides,   Muise   &   Desmarais,   2009).   Moscardelli   and   Divine’s   2007   study   indicated   that   heightening   youths’   concern   for   their   privacy   lead   to   a   greater   possibility   that   they   will   utilize   more   privacy-­‐protecting   behaviors.   This   means   that  the  role  of  parents  and  educators  in  heightening  youths’  privacy  awareness   will  translate  into  more  desirable  privacy-­‐protecting  behaviors  and  that  guiding   youths  on  protecting  their  privacy  does  reap  results.     55   Strategies  employed  by  youths  to  protect  their  privacy  online  include:  exclusion   of   personal   information,   using   private   email   messages   and   altering   the   default   privacy  settings  (Young  &  Quan-­‐Haase,  2009),  or  adjusting  their  profile  visibility   and  using  nicknames  (Tufekci,  2008).       In   the   Singapore   context,   a   study   on   adolescence   disclosure   revealed   that   Singaporean  parents  tend  to  underestimate  their  teenagers’  engagement  in  risky   Internet   behavior   and   overestimate   the   amount   of   parental   monitoring   regarding  Internet  safety  at  home.  It  recommended  that  parental  monitoring  in   Singapore   needs   to   be   reconceptualized   and   that   parents   need   to   improve   communicating   to   their   teenagers   regarding   Internet   use   (Liau,   Khoo   and   Ang,   2008).   Therefore,   this   study   supports   the   need   to   understand   Singapore   parents   together   with   their   youths   to   ascertain   if   there   exists   a   difference   in   privacy   perceptions  between  the  two  groups.       4.7  Research  Questions   Based   on   the   literature   review   of   youths,   privacy   as   well   as   SNS,   this   paper   shall   examine   the   concerns   linked   with   the   rise   SNS   usage;   how   youths   are   representing   themselves   online   and   determine   how   savvy   youths   are   when   it   comes   to   protecting   themselves   against   online   predators   from   their   levels   of   personal  information  disclosure  in  Facebook.       56 Parents   require   knowledge   on   how   their   youths   perceive   online   safety   and   the   amount  of  personal  information  they  disclose  online  before  they  can  guide  their   youths  against  online  predatory  practices.  Thus,  this  paper  seeks  to  address  the   following  research  questions:     RQ1:  Do  Singaporean  youths  adopt  privacy  safeguards  in  Facebook?     RQ2:   What   is   the   extent   and   nature   of   information   disclosure   by   Singapore   youths  in  SNS?   RQ3:   To   what   extent   are   Singaporean   parents   aware   of   the   nature   of   personal   information   disclosure   by   their   teenage   children   in   Facebook?   RQ4:  How  safe  do  Singaporean  parents  perceive  their  teenage  children  to   be  in  Facebook?   RQ5:  Are  there  disparities  between  youths’  and  parents’  perceptions  of  the   risk  of  personal  information  disclosure  vis  a  vis  Facebook?     Chapter  5:  Methodology   5.1  Selecting  research  methods   Communications  research  utilizes  many  applied  social  research  methods.  While   there   are   many   ways   of   classifying   applied   social   research,   Rossi   and   Whyte   (1983)   have   identified   three   broad   categories:   descriptive,   analytical   and   evaluation.         57 Descriptive   applied   social   research   is   the   most   basic   of   the   three   types   of   research.  It  makes  extensive  use  of  sample  surveys  and  performs  an  important   ‘intelligence   and   monitoring’   function   (Bulmer,   1982).     Social   surveys   provide   policymakers   with   a   wealth   of   descriptive   data,   which   cover   demographic   characteristics,  economic  factors  and  social  trends.         Analytical   studies   go   beyond   simple   description   in   their   attempt   to   model   empirically  social  phenomena  under  investigation.  Applied  research  is  defined  in   terms   of   intention   and   not   outcome.   Analytical   research   is   usually   problem-­‐ oriented  and  is  used  to  “illuminate  a  problem  in  such  a  way  as  to  permit  action  to   be  taken  to  change  the  situation  revealed”  (Bulmer,  1982).     The   scope   of   research   for   this   study   encompasses   of   youths’   perceptions   of   privacy  and  their  level  of  self-­‐disclosure  online;  as  well  as  their  parents’  level  of   knowledge  of  privacy  and  the  online  habits  of  their  children.  The  data  collected   for  analysis  cover  both  descriptive  as  well  as  analytical  social  research.  Results   of  this  study  will  provide  information  for  policy  makers  as  well  as  educators  and   parents  on  the  approach  to  adopt  when  guiding  youths  in  SNS.     5.1.1  Research  framework:  Mixed  methods  research   Mixed  methods  research  was  first  used  in  the  social  sciences  to  describe  a  form   of  multiple  operationalism  or  convergent  validation  (Campbell,  1956;  Campbell   &   Friske,   1959).   At   that   time,   mixed   methods   research   was   used   largely   for   58 multiple   data-­‐collection   technologies   designed   to   measure   a   single   concept   or   construct  (data  triangulation).         For   many   researchers,   mixed   methods   research   is   restricted   to   the   use   of   multiple   data-­‐gathering   techniques   to   investigate   the   same   phenomena.   This   is   interpreted   as   a   means   of   mutual   confirmation   of   measures   and   validation   of   findings   (Jick,   1983;   Knafl   &   Breitmayer,   1989;   Leedy,   2001;   Mitchell,   1986;   Sohier,  1988;  Webb,  et  al.,  1981).  Fielding  and  Fielding  (1986,  p.  31)  suggested   that   the   important   feature   of   mixed   methods   research   is   not   the   simple   combination   of   different   kinds   of   data   but   the   attempt   to   relate   them   so   as   to   counteract  the  threats  to  validity  identified  in  each.       Hammersley   (1996)   suggested   a   tripartite   classification   of   the   ways   in   which   researchers   employ   different   types   of   the   data   in   the   process   of   interpreting   their  data:   (a) Triangulation:   where   one   type   of   data   (usually   quantitative)   is   used   to   corroborate  another  type  of  data  (qualitative)   (b) Facilitation:  where  collecting  one  type  of  data  facilitates  the  collection  of   another  type  of  data   (c) Complementarity:   when   two   different   sets   of   data   are   employed   to   address  different  but  complementary  aspects  of  a  research     59 For  this  study,  the  content  analysis  and  online  survey  aspects  of  the  research  are   treated   as   complementary;   the   survey   is   used   to   examine   associations   and   generalizability   to   the   parent   and   youth   population   whilst   content   analysis   is   used   to   understand   social   processes   at   a   micro-­‐level.   Complementarity   also   addresses   how   each   dataset   is   interpreted   in   relation   to   the   conceptualization   of   the  research  question  and  method  by  which  the  results  are  obtained.       Mixed   methods   research   can   also   be   used   to   address   the   strengths   and   weaknesses   of   different   forms   of   quantitative   research   within   the   same   study   (Hewson,  2006,  2007).  When  mixed  methods  research  is  brought  into  the  online   context,  it  allows  for  the  observation  of  behavior  in  online  environments  which   cannot  be  replicated  offline.  Thus,  mixed  methods  for  Internet  research  allow  for   a   research   strategy   that   combines   different   approaches   in   a   single   study   (Hewson,  2007).       The   Internet   supports   mixed   methods   research   as   it   provides   a   conducive   environment  for  document  analysis,  allowing  for  ready  access  to  large  volumes   of   data   online   at   anytime,   thus   easing   and   expediting   the   data   collection   for   content   analysis.   Other   advantages   include   the   ease   of   lengthy   and   costly   data   collection   procedures   by   digitalizing   the   data   collection   process.   Using   certain   instruments   such   as   online   surveys   may   increase   the   response   rate   as   respondents   are   afforded   flexibility   in   terms   of   when   and   where   to   fill   up   the   surveys.   However,   drawbacks   of   the   Internet   also   include   how   I   need   to   confirm   60 the  veracity  of  the  information  collected  during  content  analysis  and  the  surveys   being   timed   out   when   participants   forget   to   complete   the   surveys   while   multi-­‐ tasking  when  they  are  online.     Internet-­‐mediated  mixed  methods  research  can  be  applied  in  one  of  two  ways:   sequential   or   concurrent   (Creswell,   2003).   The   sequential   approach   is   utilized   for   this   study,   where   content   analysis   is   first   conducted,   after   which   its   results   provide  the  basis  for  constructing  the  questions  for  the  subsequent  survey.       5.1.3  Content  analysis   The   content   analysis   conducted   for   this   study   is   quantitative   and   serves   as   a   precursor  to  the  online  survey.  The  reason  why  content  analysis  preferred  over   other   research   methods   for   this   study   is   because   it   produces   richer   and   more   informative   data,   which   is   imbued   with   the   participants’   own   understandings,   meanings  and  perspectives  (Hewson,  2007).       An   advantage   of   online   content   analysis   is   how   I   have   the   option   of   adopting   a   participant   or   observer   role   and   this   option   complements   the   action-­‐research   framework  for  this  study  when  I  not  want  to  be  intrusive  during  data  collection.       5.1.4  Surveys   For   this   study,   the   surveys   of   the   youths   and   their   parents   contribute   to   the   quantitative   component;   a   self-­‐completion   online   survey   allows   researchers   to   61 obtain   a   large-­‐scale   representative   sample   that   generates   data   to   be   analyzed   statistically.       The  main  advantage  of  self-­‐completion  surveys  is  that  a  large  population  can  be   surveyed   relatively   cheaply.   Costs   are   lower   as   interviewers   are   not   used,   and   pre-­‐coding   and   computerization   speeds   up   analysis.     Online   surveys   also   allow   for  flexibility  to  the  respondents  who  complete  the  survey  at  a  time  convenient   to  them.  For  this  study,  which  examines  attitudes  and  behaviors  online,  an  online   survey   is   more   suitable   as   compared   to   telephone   and   postal   surveys   as   the   youths  are  already  immersed  in  an  online  environment.     Disadvantages   of   using   the   survey   method   include   low   response   rate   where   some   surveys   do   not   even   achieve   more   than   a   20   per   cent   rate   of   return.   The   response  rate  depends  on  a  variety  of  factors  such  as  the  subject  matter  of  the   survey,   the   target   population   of   the   survey,   the   respondents’   perception   of   the   value   of   the   study   and   the   ease   of   completion   of   the   survey.   The   low   response   rate  does  not  factor  in  the  issue  of  incomplete  surveys,  which  aggravates  the  low   response   rate   for   surveys.   For   online   surveys,   there   is   the   issue   of   multi-­‐tasking,   where   youths   and   parents   begin   answering   the   survey   and   move   on   to   doing   other   tasks,   leaving   the   survey   to   run   in   the   background   and   forgetting   to   get   back  to  it,  heightening  the  risk  of  the  low  response  rate.       62 Therefore,  the  disadvantages  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration  when  drawing   up  the  survey  to  minimize  the  effect  of  low  response  rate.     5.1.5  Benefits  of  mixed  methods  research   Quantitative  research  involves  using  a  numerical  approach  to  the  collection  and   analysis   of   data.   This   usually   requires   empirical   studies   using   social   survey   techniques   to   collect   data   from   representative   samples   of   the   population   with   the  aim  of  producing  factual  data  from  which  generalizations  and  characteristics   of  the  society  can  be  created.       Also,  mixed  methods  research  can  increase  the  validity  of  the  results.  Validity  in   a  study  exists  if  the  instruments  used,  in  this  case,  the  surveys  and  the  content   analysis  of  Facebook  profiles,  measure  what  they  set  out  to  measure.  The  results   from  each  method  complement  the  weaknesses  of  the  other  method  and  serves   to   either   concur   and   strengthen   the   validity   of   some   results   obtained,   while   making  sure  that  further  investigation  is  warranted  should  some  of  the  results  of   one  method  contradict  the  results  of  the  other.       The   combination   of   different   types   of   quantitative   research   methods   such   as   surveys  and  content  analysis  for  this  study  will  thus  allow  for  an  assessment  of   youths’   privacy   perceptions   and   self-­‐disclosure   practices   in   SNS.   The   results   of   the   surveys   will   be   complemented   by   results   from   the   content   analysis   of   the   youths’  Facebook  profiles  at  the  micro-­‐level.     63   Therefore,   for   the   purpose   of   this   study,   content   analysis   of   Singaporean   youths’   Facebook   profiles   and   surveys   for   both   parents   as   well   as   youths   shall   be   employed   for   the   mixed   methods   research   and   conducted   using   the   action   research  framework  of  participatory  research.     5.2  Research  Design   The  research  undertaken  for  this  study  is  of  a  cross-­‐sectional  nature,  where  data   collection  is  conducted  on  more  than  one  case  at  a  single  point  in  time  (David  &   Sutton,  2004).    In  cross-­‐sectional  data  collection,  the  exploration  of  relationships   and   associations   between   variables   are   carefully   thought   through   and   are   dependent  on  the  literature  review  in  the  previous  chapters  of  this  thesis.     It   is   important   at   the   research   design   phase   to   reiterate   that   the   two   datasets,   obtained  from  the  surveys  and  content  analysis,  are  distinct  and  separate  parts   of  the  research  and  that  each  is  valid  in  it  own  right.       In   the   case   of   this   study,   the   second   survey   phase   of   the   study   depended   upon   the   first   content   analysis   phase   and   that   some   of   the   information   that   were   obtained   from   the   content   analysis   provided   the   contextual   information   about   the  self-­‐disclosure  and  online  risk-­‐taking  habits  (if  any)  by  the  youths.       64 For   mixed   methods   research,   the   combining   of   different   types   of   quantitative   research  methods  needs  to  be  justified  in  terms  of  how  this  combination  is  best   for  answering  certain  research  questions.     The   research   aims   of   the   two   phases   of   data   collection   were   different.   They   addressed   different   research   questions   and   were   designed   to   generate   data   analyses   that   complemented   each   other.   The   content   analysis   phase,   for   example,   would   be   unable   to   address   questions   about   youths’   and   parents’   attitudes  and  perceptions.    The  surveys  were  therefore  designed  and  carried  out   with   this   additional   purpose   in   mind.   The   surveys   were   also   able   to   provide   insights   into   questions   that   were   raised   in   the   course   of   data   analysis,   thus   helping  to  explain  why  youth  post  some  types  of  information  and  not  others.       Revisiting   the   research   questions   on   page   54   and   55,   RQ1   and   RQ2   can   be   adequately   addressed   using   content   analysis,   which   is   inductive   and   thus   allows   for   exploration   and   a   deeper   insight   into   the   individual   Facebook   profiles.   Further   questions   to   enhance   the   validity   of   the   results   obtained   from   the   content   analysis   of   the   youth’s   Facebook   profiles   can   be   used   as   basis   for   the   formulation  of  the  online  surveys.  RQ3,  RQ4  and  RQ5  can  be  addressed  using  the   online   surveys   for   the   youths   and   parents   as   the   questions   require   deductive   answers,  which  allow  for  greater  reliability  and  generalizability  due  to  its  tighter   focus  (David  &  Sutton,  2004).     65 5.2.1  Content  analysis   One   of   the   debates   when   content   analysis   is   involved   in   the   research   design   is   deciding  if  should  be  considered  qualitative  or  quantitative.  Berelson  (1952)  and   Silverman   (1993)   are   of   the   opinion   that   content   analysis   is   a   quantitative   component   of   research   as   it   is   “objective   and   systematic”.   Other   proponents   of   content  analysis  prefer  to  see  content  analysis  as  a  mixture  of  both  quantitative   and   qualitative   (Smith,   1975).   For   this   study,   content   analysis   is   primarily   quantitative  and  addresses  the  duration  and  frequency  of  the  forms  and  texts.       For  this  study,  where  content  analysis  is  conducted  online,  I  have  the  option  of   adopting   an   observer’s   role   where   I   do   not   want   to   be   intrusive   during   data   collection.  This  helps  to  reduce  bias,  as  I  am  able  to  observe  the  participants  in   their  natural  online  environment  and  unaffected  behavior  in  Facebook.     5.2.1.1  Coding  frame   The   coding   frame   for   the   content   analysis   of   Facebook   profiles   of   Singaporean   youths   is   based   on   RQ1   and   RQ2,   which   seek   to   find   out   how   many   of   Singaporean  youths’  profiles  are  public  or  private  and  the  types  of  information   that   are   revealed   online.   The   types   of   information   range   from   their   names   and   profile  photos  to  email  addresses,  blog  addresses  or  home  addresses,  as  well  as   further   details   such   as   the   types   of   profile   photos   –   individuals   in   school   uniforms   or   group   photos   with   friends   or   family.   From   the   description   of   the   coding  frame,  both  manifest  and  latent  content  analysis  are  employed,  where  the   66 manifest   content   is   physically   present   and   countable,   vis   a   vis   latent   content   analysis,  where  analysis  is  extended  to  understanding  the  underlying  meaning  of   the  data  (Berelson,  1952).     The  conceptualization  of  the  coding  frame  is  based  partly  on  current  SNS  content   analysis  studies  such  as  the  one  on  MySpace  conducted  by  Patchin  and  Hinduja   (2010).   Beside   existing   studies,   the   categories   of   the   coding   frame   are   derived   from   my   immersion   in   the   Facebook   environment,   identifying   themes   and   dimensions   that   relate   to   the   purpose   of   the   research   and   the   research   questions.     For   the   Facebook   profiles,   specific   words   may   not   make   sense   independently,   therefore   I   was   also   looking   out   for   concepts   of   personal   information   and   self-­‐ disclosure.       Such   a   form   of   content   analysis   differs   slightly   from   the   traditional   concept   of   content  analysis,  from  the  way  the  coding  frame  is  derived,  in  terms  of  the  units   or   analysis,   as   well   as   how   content   analysis   is   conducted   –   instead   of   going   through  paragraphs,  content  analysis  in  this  study  is  very  precise  as  information   is  either  present  or  not  in  Facebook  profiles.  This  results  in  lesser  ambiguity  in   the   results   obtained   for   the   content   analysis.   However,   bearing   in   mind   the   weaknesses   of   content   analysis,   it   is   taken   to   be   an   analysis   tool   to   be   complemented   with   online   surveys,   rather   than   an   entire   research   strategy   on   its  own  (Berg,  2004).   67   To   improve   reliability   in   this   study,   the   coding   frame   for   content   analysis   was   kept   simple   and   the   types   of   information   and   concepts   to   look   out   for   were   in   discrete   categories.   I   did   the   coding   process,   which   reduced   bias   or   lack   of   reliability   due   to   the   inter-­‐coder  process.  However,  this  entailed  the  possibility   of  introducing  a  myopic  perspective  to  the  study;  to  mitigate  its  effects,  I  set  the   units   of   analysis   to   be   as   neutral   and   value-­‐free   as   possible.   Discrete   units   and   concepts  such  as  Private/Public  were  also  used  to  avoid  ambiguity.       The   final   coding   frame   consisted   of   eight   categories   and   specified   codes   for   categories   of   information   such   as   identifying   the   youths’   profile,   personal,   identifying  and  contact  information,  number  of  friends  and  level  of  privacy.  The   coding   frame   also   accounted   for   the   different   types   of   information   disclosure   such   as   real   name,   address,   number   of   photos,   as   well   as   wall   posts’   content   and   general   frequency   of   status   updates.   I   also   noted   the   path   leading   each   youth’s   profile  –  via  friends  or  general  search  for  Secondary  Schools.       5.2.1.2  Sampling   Sampling   on   Facebook   was   conducted   systematically   based   on   the   sample   frame   of   Facebook’s   list   of   users.   This   was   to   ensure   representativeness.   Based   on   other  studies  focusing  on  relationships  in  SNS  networks,  Facebook  users  appear   to   be   clustered   by   school   with   respect   to   their   temporal   messaging   patterns   68 (Golder,  Wilkinson  &  Huberman,  2007),  therefore  I  utilized  the  school  networks   present  in  Facebook  for  my  sampling  frame.     The   period   of   data   collection   for   the   content   analysis   of   Facebook   profiles   was   over   a   week   in   November   2009.   The   coding   frame   had   already   been   created,   though  it  was  subjected  to  minor  modifications  prior  to  the  study,  when  it  was   pre-­‐tested  for  50  Facebook  profiles.  This  was  to  prevent  major  modifications  in   the  course  of  the  data  collection  and  ensure  consistency  in  the  results.       In  the  course  of  a  week  in  November  2009,  data  was  collected  from  500  profiles.   Initially   there   were   problems   in   terms   of   accessing   the   demographic   group   of   secondary  school  students.  This  is  due  in  part  to  Facebook’s  search  engine.  When   the   search   term   “secondary   school”   was   entered,   the   filter   “Singapore”   had   to   be   entered  as  well,  as  seen  from  the  screen  capture  below:       Fig  5.1:  Facebook’s  search  engine   69 Also,   from   the   results   above,   only   one   of   the   results   was   a   student   still   in   a   secondary  school  even  though  two  of  them  were  listed  as  under  the  Seng  Kang   Secondary   School   network.   Therefore   it   would   be   inaccurate   to   assume   that   everyone   under   a   Secondary   School   network   in   Facebook   is   currently   a   Secondary  School  student,  which  presented  a  challenge  during  data  collection.       Therefore,   it   was   imperative   to   go   through   the   information   in   each   youth’s   Facebook   profile   to   ascertain   the   school   affiliation   and   whether   the   youth   was   indeed  a  current  secondary  school  student.  Sometimes  it  might  not  be  clear  from   going   through   the   youth’s   profile   information   and   I   had   to   seek   further   verification  by  going  through  the  youth’s  friend  list  to  see  if  most  of  the  youth’s   friends  were  from  secondary  school  networks  or  in  secondary  school  uniforms   which   would   aid   in   confirming   whether   the   youth   was   currently   enrolled   in   a   secondary  school,  as  seen  in  Fig  5.2.       Fig  5.2:  Friends  list  of  a  student   70 In   the   process   of   collecting   Facebook   profiles   of   secondary   school   students,   I   gleaned   a   more   comprehensive   understanding   of   Facebook’s   security   settings   for   minors   –   the   minimum   age   for   a   Facebook   account   is   13   (Facebook.com,   2010).   The   security   settings   in   place   for   minors   who   have   Facebook   accounts   include   disabling   private   message   functions,   posting   comments   on   their   walls   or   viewing   their   personal   information,   thus   preventing   incidences   of   online   harassment   by   strangers.   Also,   the   search   for   secondary   schools   revealed   that   minors  are  not  usually  listed  in  the  first  ten  results  of  the  result  list.  One  had  to   go   through   a   couple   of   pages   of   results   before   encountering   a   secondary   student’s   profile.   Last   but   not   least,   the   results   for   profiles   become   repetitive   after  the  first  100  profiles.  Such  settings  are  probably  part  of  the  safeguards  that   Facebook  has  in  place  to  deter  sexual  predators  from  accessing  minors’  profiles.       Such   safeguards   also   had   implications   for   sampling   when   it   came   to   data   collection   for   content   analysis.   Systematic   probability   sampling   could   not   be   carried  out  due  to  the  repetition  of  results.  I  tried  to  circumvent  the  problem  by   going  to  the  Facebook  pages  of  Secondary  Schools.  However,  it  was  discovered,   as   shown   in   Fig   5.3,   that   most   of   the   Facebook   users   who   joined   the   Facebook   groups  and  pages  of  secondary  schools  were  not  its  current  students,  but  rather,   its   alumni.   However,   this   was   not   a   fruitless   exercise   as   I   managed   to   utilize   this   channel  later  for  the  dissemination  of  the  online  surveys.   71   Fig  5.3:  A  Secondary  school’s  Facebook  page   In   spite   of   the   challenges   faced,   the   data   collection   for   the   content   analysis   of   Singaporean  secondary  students’  Facebook  profiles  was  handled  in  a  systematic   manner.  I  began  with  a  generic  “secondary  school”  search  with  “Singapore”  as  a   filter   from   Facebook’s   search   engine   after   logging   onto   Facebook.   When   a   secondary  school  student’s  profile  was  confirmed,  that  student’s  friend  list  will   be  used  as  a  new  sampling  frame  from  which  to  obtain  another  secondary  school   student’s   profile.   This   sampling   strategy   improves   validity,   as   it   is   more   likely   to   obtain   an   actual   secondary   school   student’s   profile   from   the   friend   list   of   a   secondary  school  student  than  the  generic  Facebook  search  result  list.       72 However,  there  were  certain  criteria  for  my  snowball  sampling.  Firstly,  the  next   secondary   school   student   had   to   be   from   a   different   school   as   the   secondary   school   student   before   him/her.   Therefore,   to   ensure   representativeness   in   the   content   analysis,   the   profile   of   the   fifth   person   from   the   first   secondary   school   student’s  Facebook  friend  list  who  was  not  from  the  same  school  was  shortlisted   –   this   was   repeated   for   seven   profiles   before   getting   another   profile   from   Facebook’s   search   list   results.   This   was   to   limit   any   potential   bias   and   prevent   the  rest  of  the  profiles  from  being  linked  to  one  profile.       The  data  collection  had  to  be  conducted  over  seven  days,  as  my  Internet  cache   had  to  be  refreshed  daily  to  prevent  getting  the  same  results  on  Facebook.  The   sampling  protocol  for  my  content  analysis  allowed  for  an  examination  of  a  mix  of   youths   from   various   secondary   schools,   instead   of   getting   most   of   the   youths   from  the  same  school,  which  allowed  for  the  generalizability  of  the  results.       The  limitations  of  the  data  collection  via  content  analysis  were  mainly  technical   limitations  when  accessing  the  profiles  of  minors.  Also,  ascertaining  whether  the   Facebook   profile   belonged   to   a   current   secondary   student   was   not   straightforward   due   to   the   limited   information   in   private   profiles.   However,   these   limitations   were   mitigated   through   a   systematic   way   of   accessing   and   ascertaining   the   relevance   of   the   profiles   for   the   purpose   of   the   research.   A   possible   bias   that   might   arise   from   the   sampling   was   how   Singaporean   secondary  school  students  who  were  not  part  of  any  secondary  school  network   73 on  Facebook  would  not  be  part  of  the  sample  frame.  It  was  a  trade-­‐off  to  ensure   the  validity  of  the  data  collection  and  results.  Not  all  the  profiles  accessed  were   public,   though   all   the   profiles   were   Facebook   profiles   that   could   be   viewed   by   non-­‐friends   like   myself.   Therefore   private   profiles   were   included   in   the   data   collection  as  well.       5.2.2  Surveys  -­  Method   Another  quantitative  aspect  of  the  research  was  in  the  form  of  online  surveys.  An   online  survey  afforded  the  respondents  flexibility  in  terms  where  and  when  they   to   fill   up   the   survey.   Most   importantly,   the   online   survey   was   suitable   for   answering   RQ3,   RQ4   and   RQ5,   which   deal   with   attitudinal   and   behavioral   questions.  The  survey  also  complemented  the  results  of  the  content  analysis  for   RQ1  and  RQ2.     The   online   survey   method   was   also   selected   as   surveys   and   research   administered   online   have   been   associated   with   reductions   in   socially   desirable   responding   (Joinson,   1999;   Frick   et   al.,   2001),   higher   levels   of   self-­‐disclosure   (Weisband   &   Keisler,   1996)   and   an   increased   willingness   to   answer   sensitive   questions  (Tourangeau,  2004).     The   most   important   part   of   a   survey   research   is   the   development   of   the   questions.   The   success   of   the   survey   hinges   upon   the   questions   that   are   asked,   the  ways  in  which  they  are  phrased  and  the  order  in  which  they  are  placed.  On   74 top   of   that,   to   incorporate   the   values   of   action   research,   the   survey   questions   were   also   made   more   accessible   to   the   layperson,   especially   questions   for   the   parents,   who   might   not   always   be   proficient   in   the   online   environment.   In   fact,   a   study  indicated  that  people  find  a  computer  format  survey  both  more  enjoyable   and   faster   than   a   paper   survey   (Edwards,   et   al.,   1997).   This   may   be   due   to   the   higher   level   of   interactivity   in   a   computer-­‐mediated   environment.   However   limitations  of  the  online  surveys  include  how  respondents  do  not  complete  the   surveys  in  time  due  to  multi-­‐tasking  while  completing  the  surveys.     5.2.2.1  Surveys  -­  procedure   Two   sets   of   online   surveys   were   created:   one   for   the   Singaporean   youths   and   another   for   Singaporean   parents   with   children   in   secondary   schools.   A   pre   requisite  for  the  survey  for  the  secondary  school  students  was  that  they  needed   to  have  a  Facebook  account,  as  the  purpose  of  the  survey  is  to  determine  their   online   privacy   perceptions   and   types   of   personal   information   disclosed   in   Facebook.  The  Facebook  account  pre-­‐requisite  was  not  extended  to  the  parents   as  only  their  online  privacy  perceptions  were  to  be  gleaned.     Many  types  of  questions  were  utilized  in  both  surveys.  They  ranged  from  open   ended   questions   to   gain   more   insight   into   the   respondents,   as   well   as   fixed   alternative  or  closed  questions,  multiple  choice  questions  to  gather  demographic   information   or   to   find   out   the   respondents’   perspectives   on   a   range   of   issues   (Ray,   2006).   The   ordinal   scale   questions   were   used   to   ask   respondents   to   rank   a   75 range   items   such   as   a   list   of   personal   information   items   in   increasing   level   of   privacy.  Another  type  of  question  utilized  in  both  surveys  was  the  interval  scale   question.  Most  of  the  interval  scale  questions  were  based  on  the  Likert  scale  to   express   level   of   agreement   based   on   a   series   of   statements   related   to   online   privacy.  Finally,  the  last  type  of  question  that  was  used  in  both  surveys  was  the   ratio  scale  question,  which  asked  respondents  to  provide  measurable  responses;   for  example,  the  number  of  hours  the  individual  spent  online  in  a  week.         The  types  of  information  sought  from  the  respondents  also  affected  the  types  of   questions   that   were   formulated.   The   types   of   information   sought   included   the   following:  Attributes  (personal  or  socio-­‐economic  characteristics  such  as  gender,   age,   occupation,   which   schools   respondents   are   from),   Behavior   (what   the   individual   has   done,   is   doing   and   may   do   in   the   future),   Attitude   (evaluation   and   how  respondents  feel  about  an  issue).     An   affordance   of   online   surveys   that   came   in   useful   when   implementing   both   surveys   for   parents   and   secondary   school   students   was   the   ability   to   route   questions   seamlessly.   Once   I   understood   the   workings   of   setting   up   the   survey   online,   it   was   possible   to   route   questions   from   one   to   the   next   in   non-­‐sequential   order,   based   on   the   respondent’s   response.   This   affordance   affected   the   order   of   the   questions,   as   I   was   able   to   begin   an   open-­‐ended   line   of   questioning.   This   process   is   called   funneling   (David   &   Sutton,   2004;   Ray,   2006).   Routing   or   funneling  questions  allowed  me  to  direct  the  respondents  to  particular  sections   76 of   the   questions.   This   process   is   helpful   when   there   are   some   groups   of   questions  that  are  not  applicable  to  some  respondents,  for  example,  parents  who   are  not  on  Facebook.       An   issue   that   was   addressed   in   the   formulation   of   the   survey   was   the   issue   of   context   effects   that   refer   to   the   effects   of   prior   questions   on   subsequent   questions   (Schman   &   Presser,   1981;   Schuman,   1992;   Sudman   et   al.,   1996,   Tourangeau   et   al.,   2000).   Context   effects   is   salient   for   this   study   as   the   subject   matter   involves   perceptions   of   privacy,   which   are   based   largely   on   one’s   experiences   and   values   that   have   been   affected   by   one’s   surroundings.   On   top   of   that,  social  networks  online  are  participatory  and  experiential  and  this  could  add   another   layer   of   context   effects.   The   order   of   the   questions   could   be   re-­‐arranged   when  I  was  constructing  the  online  survey,  thus  mitigating  context  effects.     Researchers   have   long   recognized   the   influence   of   social   desirability   on   responses   to   sensitive   or   embarrassing   questions   is   higher   in   interviewer-­‐ administered   surveys   than   self-­‐administered   surveys   (Tourangeau   &   Smith,   1996).    Based  on  this,  we  can  expect  Internet  surveys  to  produce  fewer  socially   desirable   responses.   However,   this   assumes   that   the   respondents   trust   in   the   confidentiality  provided  by  Internet  surveys,  which  may  not  always  be  the  case.   What   I   did   to   mitigate   the   effects   of   context   effects   was   to   provide   the   respondents   more   control   over   the   survey   process   through   allowing   them   to   move  to  previous  questions  to  not  restrict  their  navigation.     77   To  provide  respondents  with  more  confidence,  the  language  used  in  the  survey   was   also   not   laden   with   technical   jargon   and   kept   simple   and   direct,   avoiding   ambiguity.   For   words   like   privacy,   a   simple   definition   was   used   to   explain   the   term.   Leading   questions   as   well   as   double-­‐barreled   questions   were   avoided   to   avoid   causing   confusion.   Such   an   approach   also   upholds   the   fundamentals   of   action  research,  to  be  more  inclusive  and  accessible  to  the  layperson  by  making   the  survey  questions  less  laden  with  technical  jargon.       Finally,   the   design   of   the   survey   also   took   into   consideration   the   order   of   the   questions.   Context   effects   are   also   present   in   the   question   order.   Question   order   effects   become   increasingly   likely   to   occur   the   closer   the   questions   are   to   each   other,  in  terms  of  topic  and  the  location  in  the  survey  (Schuman  &  Presser,  1981;   Strack,   1992;   Tourangeau,   1992;   Touragangeau   et   al.,   2000).     Question   order   sometimes  brings  to  mind  considerations  that  are  then  more  accessible  for  use   in   interpreting   and   responding   to   a   subsequent   question   –   a   priming   function   (Schwarz   &   Clore,   1983;   Touragneau   at   al.,   1989;   Schwarz   &   Bless,   1992).   However,   the   respondent   must   perceive   the   two   questions   as   being   related   topically  before  any  consideration  will  be  paid  to  formulating  similar  responses.       Therefore  I  have  taken  note  to  not  list  questions  according  to  similar  themes  and   concepts,   but   rather,   by   the   type   of   information.   Respondents   will   answer   questions   about   attributes,   which   are   more   factual,   before   moving   on   to   the   78 behavioral,  and  attitudinal  questions  instead  of  answering  questions  by  themes.   Questions   pertaining   to   the   same   theme   will   therefore   be   spread   across   the   survey,  to  reduce  the  possibility  of  bias  in  the  results  collated.     Besides  context  effects  in  question  order,  the  fear  of  taking  extreme  positions  on   highly  polarized  issues  may  lead  to  contrast  effects  as  the  respondents  attempt   to   be   neutral   and   non-­‐partisan   by   selecting   some   items   and   rejecting   others   (Tourangeau,  1992).  Using  page-­‐by-­‐page  construction  will  reduce  the  likelihood   of  context  effects  by  making  the  relationships  between  questions  less  obvious  as   there  is  the  tendency  for  respondents  to  prefer  middle  categories  (Tourangeau   et  al;.  2004).  Therefore,  the  Internet  surveys  were  constructed  in  a  page-­‐by-­‐page   view,   with   one   question   per   page,   with   the   element   of   routing   incorporated   in   the  surveys  as  well  to  spread  out  the  risk  of  middle  categories  bias.     Another   important   underlying   aspect   of   the   formulation   of   the   survey   is   its   theoretical   grounding,   where   I   have   to   be   as   non-­‐technical   as   possible   while   incorporating   an   understanding   of   the   theoretical   underpinnings   of   SNS   and   online  privacy  in  the  questions  asked.  This  shall  be  addressed  in  the  next  section.     5.2.2.2  Dimensions   Dimensions  are  derived  from  theoretical  underpinnings  while  formulating  of  the   online   surveys.   Although   mutual   collaboration   action   research   is   inclined   towards   understanding   events   via   mutual   understanding   of   the   transactions   79 between  one’s  mental  work  and  external  context;  a  sound  theoretical  framework   is  essential  to  ensure  the  systematic  creation  of  survey  categories  and  questions.       Altman   and   Taylor   (1973)   suggested   that   disclosure   could   be   categorized   into   either  peripheral,  intermediate  or  core  layers.    The  peripheral  layer  is  concerned   with  biographic  data  (e.g  age),  the  intermediate  layer  with  attitudes,  values  and   opinions  and  the  core  layer  with  personal  values  such  as  needs,  fears  and  values.   Self-­‐report   measures   of   disclosure   have   been   achieved   previously   with   a   reasonable  amount  of  success.  Parks  and  Floyd  (1996)  asked  their  participants   to   report   the   level   of   their   Internet   relationships   using   self-­‐report.   However,   a   lack   of   context   seems   to   be   the   main   challenge   when   using   self-­‐report   measures,   I  tried  to  circumvent  this  by  posing  scenarios  to  youths.   This  is  demonstrated  in   the   survey   when   youths   were   posed   a   scenario   question   that   tested   their   understanding  of  how  the  photo-­‐tagging  function  in  Facebook  works.     Disclosure   is   something   that   is   reflective   of   an   ongoing   conversation   and   the   wider   environment   –   which   includes   interpersonal   and   not   just   computer-­‐ mediated  interactions  (Joinson  &  Paine,  2004).  Therefore  how  one  accesses  the   environment  is  important  as  well  –  for  SNS  like  Facebook,  users  join  to  link  up   with  other  users,  which  may  explain  the  why  the  social  element  supersedes  the   need  to  protect  one’s  personal  information  in  Facebook.       80 The   privacy   and   self-­‐disclosure   concepts   work   on   the   premise   that   very   few   individuals   actually   take   any   action   to   protect   their   personal   information,   even   when  doing  so  involves  little  or  no  cost  (Berendt  et  al.,  2005;  Jenson  et  al.,  2005).     Therefore,   the   issues   of   privacy   and   self-­‐disclosure   were   investigated   in   the   survey   questions   where   youths   were   asked   about   their   awareness   of   various   privacy  settings  in  Facebook  vis  a  vis  the  privacy  settings  they  utilized.     The  privacy  framework  for  this  study  was  based  on  Westin’s  (1967)  four  main   functions   of   privacy:   solitude,   intimacy,   anonymity   and   reserve   (limited   and   protected   communication),   which   in   turn   provide   the   link   between   secrecy   (dependent   on   level   of   disclosure)   and   privacy.   Privacy   is   particularly   important   for  understanding  self-­‐disclosure,  as  the  relationship  between  the  two  concepts   is   paradoxical.   Privacy   is   a   prerequisite   for   disclosure,   yet   the   process   of   disclosure  undermines  privacy.  Out  of  the  four  functions  of  privacy,  the  surveys   conducted   focused   on   ‘limited   and   protected   communication’,   which   refers   to   both  the  sharing  of  personal  information  with  trusted  others  and  the  setting  of   interpersonal  boundaries.  Altman  (1975)  also  supports  this  view  of  privacy  from   a  social  and  environmental  psychology  perspective.       Both  Altman’s  (1975)  and  Westin’s  (1967)  approach  to  the  idea  of  privacy  with  a   limited-­‐access   concept   are   further   supported   by   Burgoon   et   al.   (1989)   who   derived   an   interactional   and   social-­‐communication   dimension   which   examines   an   individual’s   ability   and   effort   to   control   social   contacts.   This   interactional   81 element   of   privacy   is   then   extended   to   the   informational   dimension   of   privacy   (Westin,   1967;   Burgoon   et   al.,   1989)   that   relates   an   individual’s   right   to   determine   how,   when   and   to   what   extent   information   about   the   self   will   be   released   to   another   person.   However,   the   difference   between   informational   privacy   and   self-­‐disclosure   lies   in   the   control   –   the   self   determines   self-­‐ disclosure  whilst  information  privacy  is  partly  governed  by  law  and  for  the  case   of  Facebook,  its  set  of  privacy  settings  and  privacy  policies.       Therefore,   aside   from   the   questions   on   self-­‐disclosure   online   and   Facebook,   questions   pertaining   to   the   understanding   of   informational   and   interactional   privacy   asked   respondents   whether   they   read   Facebook’s   privacy   policy   and   their  settings  for  popular  Facebook  utilities  such  as  photo  albums.       Finally,   a   set   of   questions   was   utilized   in   both   sets   of   surveys   to   categorize   youths   and   parents   into   three   groups   according   to   the   Westin   privacy   segmentation.  The  questions  are  as  follows:     i) For   the   purpose   of   this   study,   privacy   is   defined   as   “personal   information   which   is   confined   to   or   intended   only   for,   a   certain   person/group   of   people,   and   not   anyone   else”.   State   your   level   of   agreement   with   this   statement.         ii) In   general,   you   are   concerned   about   your   privacy   when   using   the   Internet.   82 iii)  Facebook  is  safe  for  the  posting  of  personal  information  (mobile  number,   addresses).   iv)  It   is   important   to   maintain   personal   information   privacy   (e.g.   mobile   number,  contact  information)  in  Facebook.   v) I  can  count  on  Facebook  to  protect  my  privacy.     Westin’s   three   privacy   categories   include:   Privacy   Fundamentalists   who   feel   strongly  about  privacy  and  highly  value  it;  Privacy  Pragmatists  who  have  strong   values  about  privacy  and  weigh  value  to  them  and  society  when  providing  their   personal   information;   and   Privacy   Unconcerned   who   have   no   real   concerns   about  privacy.  Understanding  the  youths’  and  parents’  privacy  values  will  enable   policymakers  to  better  address  the  issue  of  online  privacy  and  self-­‐disclosure  to   the  different  groups  of  the  privacy  segmentation  and  whether  there  is  a  need  to   further  emphasize  and  reinforce  the  importance  of  privacy  online.     5.2.2.3  Sampling   Method   The   sampling   for   the   surveys   was   conducted   using   a   multi-­‐pronged   approach.   Before   the   actual   surveys   were   released,   a   pilot-­‐test   was   conducted   on   two   secondary   school   students   and   their   parents   in   December   2009   using   convenience  sampling  from  my  contacts.  Amendments  and  improvisations  were   made  before  creating  the  online  surveys  and  going  live  with  the  online  surveys   in  March  2010.     83   The   target   populations   for   the   surveys   are   Singaporean   secondary   school   students  aged  12-­‐17  as  well  as  parents  with  children  in  secondary  schools.  The   surveys   measured   self-­‐disclosure   for   the   youths   as   well   as   privacy   perceptions   for   both   youths   and   parents.   The   sampling   strategy   initially   employed   for   the   surveys   was   non-­‐probability   sampling   as   it   was   optimal   for   testing   population   characteristics   and   to   describe   accurately   the   characteristics   of   the   sample   in   order  to  estimate  population  parameters.     Procedure   I  had  initially  approached  schools  to  seek  their  cooperation  but  the  schools  were   unwilling  to  commit  to  the  study  due  to  the  conflict  with  the  schools’  academic   calendar.   Therefore,   alternative   sampling   strategies   were   employed   involving   the   use   of   social   networks.   I   joined   the   Facebook   groups   of   the   various   secondary  schools  and  posted  the  survey  links  on  the  walls  or  discussion  boards   of   the   student   group   pages   as   shown   below   in   Fig   5.4.   It   should   be   noted   that   such   a   sampling   procedure   would   be   biased   as   only   schools   which   have   a   Facebook   presence   would   be   included   in   the   study   even   though   students   from   other   schools   which   are   not   on   Facebook   have   their   own   individual   Facebook   accounts.     84   Fig  5.4:  Example  of  posts  in  discussion  boards  to  get  students  for  online  survey   After   taking   into   consideration   how   some   of   the   Facebook   groups   are   not   very   active,   alternative   ways   of   reaching   the   youths   were   used.   The   most   effective   method  was  that  of  network  sampling.  I  used  my  contacts  in  secondary  schools   to  reach  out  to  their  peers  as  well  as  contacts  of  my  friends  who  are  secondary   school  teachers  to  pass  on  the  survey  links.  Email  reminders  were  sent  weekly  to   remind  them  to  pass  on  the  survey  links.  This  proved  to  be  more  effective  than   going  through  the  bureaucracy  of  the  educational  institutes.       The   advantage   of   snowballing   is   that   it   reveals   a   network   of   contacts   that   can   be   studied   and   from   the   responses   so   far,   it   is   observed   that   there   tend   to   be   clusters   of   students   from   schools   who   participated   in   the   survey.   The   main   limitation   of   the   snowballing   sampling   strategy   is   how   it   favors   and   includes   those   with   a   connected   network   of   individuals,   which   makes   the   results   of   the   students’  survey  lacking  in  terms  of  generalizability.     85   It   was   more   difficult   to   reach   out   to   the   parents.   Most   schools   expressed   that   they  were  unwilling  to  take  on  the  surveys  due  to  the  involvement  of  parents  in   the   data   collection   process.   There   was   also   a   lack   of   support   from   the   parent   support   groups,   which   made   it   difficult   to   access   this   target   population.   It   was   also   realized   during   the   data   collection   process   that   parents   do   not   tend   to   forward  the  survey  links  to  other  parents,  which  made  snowballing  efforts  futile.       The   aim   of   the   study   was   to   obtain   responses   from   200   students   and   200   parents.    By  mid-­‐April  2010,  408  responses  from  students  were  collected  while   150  responses  were  collected  from  the  parents.  Out  of  the  408  responses  from   youths,   258   of   the   online   surveys   were   completed;   out   of   the   150   surveys   collected  from  the  parents,  101  were  completed.  The  response  rates  were  more   than  50%,  which  could  be  due  to  the  snowballing  effect,  where  participants  were   more  willing  to  complete  a  survey  from  a  known  source.       In   terms   of   representativeness,   there   were   more   female   (73.6%)   than   male   (26.4%)   youths   participating   in   the   survey   from   a   representative   mix   of   schools:   independent/autonomous   (17.3%)   and   government   (82.7%).   For   parent   respondents,   there   were   more   female   respondents   (68%)   than   male   respondents   (32%)   with   the   majority   (91.2%)   of   parent   respondents   in   white-­‐ collared  industries.     86 5.3  Challenges  encountered  in  the  course  of  data  collection   5.3.1  Challenges  faced  at  the  conceptualization  phase   Challenges   faced   in   the   conceptualization   of   the   surveys   pertain   mainly   to   linking   the   concepts   and   creating   dimensions   for   online   self-­‐disclosure   and   privacy.   The   challenge   lie   in   how   connectivity   has   become   more   nebulous   as   people  may  be  unintentionally  revealing  personal  information  via  the  technology   they  use.  For  example,  mobile  phones  with  inbuilt  location  functions     Therefore  it  was  important  to  set  the  parameters  of  self-­‐disclosure  as  a  concept   where   information   disclosure   can   be   controlled.   Also,   in   the   case   of   the   Internet,   the  self-­‐disclosure  and  privacy  paradox  may  be  resolved  without  incurring  a  loss   in  privacy  (Ben  Zee  v,  2003)  as  level  of  disclosure  for  information  online  can  be   controlled  by  the  users,  for  example,  Facebook.     5.3.2  Challenges  faced  at  the  implementation  phase   Challenges  faced  in  the  implementation  of  the  both  the  content  analysis  and  the   surveys   were   technical   limitations   as   well   as   access   to   the   target   populations.   For   the   content   analysis,   the   technical   limitations   such   as   Facebook’s   search   engine   filters   and   privacy   protection   settings   for   minors   presented   a   challenge   when   accessing   the   secondary   students’   profiles.     I   overcame   the   challenge   of   access   by   utilizing   technical   methods   such   clearing   my   cache   and   employing   a   systematic  way  of  sampling.       87 The   challenges   posed   by   the   dissemination   of   the   online   surveys   to   the   target   population   proved   to   be   more   challenging   to   overcome   as   compared   to   the   challenges  faced  during  content  analysis.  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  advisable   to   use   paper   survey   methods   for   parents,   though   there   would   be   a   trade-­‐off   in   terms  of  the  results  vis  a  vis  a  higher  response  rate.  A  mix  of  online  and  paper   surveys  may  result  in  bias  arising  from  context  effects.       Therefore,   as   the   response   rate   for   the   parents   did   not   meet   the   target   200   respondents,   the   results   from   the   parents   will   be   factored   in   as   an   exploratory   study  due  to  the  lack  of  generalizability.  The  low  response  rate  for  the  parents   will  be  factored  in  the  subsequent  chapters  during  the  discussions  on  findings.     Chapter  6:  Findings  and  discussion  –  Content  analysis     6.1  Overview  of  chapter   The   rationale   for   the   research   design   and   response   rates   of   the   online   surveys   for  both  parents  and  youths  were  reported  in  the  previous  chapter.  Following  up   on  that,  this  chapter  shall  address  the  results  of  the  content  analysis.       In  this  chapter,  the  findings  from  content  analysis  will  be  presented  to  address   RQ1   and   RQ2   (refer   to   pages   54   and   55).   The   information   collected   shall   also   address  the  issues  of:  i)  level  of  information  privacy  of  the  Facebook  profiles  of   secondary   school   students,   as   well   as   ii)   students’   utilization   of   Facebook’s   information   privacy   settings.   This   chapter   shall   proceed   to   conclude   with   88 observations  gleaned  and  how  they  contribute  to  the  existing  body  of  literature   of  SNS  and  related  topics.     6.2  Representativeness  of  student  profiles  and  data  storage   One  of  the  aims  of  conducting  content  analysis  of  Singaporean  secondary  school   students’  Facebook  profiles  was  to  aid  in  providing  the  framework  for  the  online   survey   questions.   It   also   demonstrated   the   information   privacy   safeguards   utilized  by  Singaporean  youths  on  Facebook.       The   selection   of   the   students’   profiles   was   crafted   to   be   as   varied   as   possible.   This   was   in   line   with   the   aim   of   achieving   a   purposive   sample   population   to   achieve   as   much   as   possible,   representativeness   amongst   the   student   profiles.   Among   the   500   profiles,   there   was   a   mix   of   single-­‐sex   (33.1%)   and   co-­‐ed   (66.9%)   schools;   schools   from   the   north   (33.1%),   south   (24.3%),   east   (26.2%)   and   west   (16.4%)   zones;   independent/   autonomous   (15.1%)   and   government   (84.9%)   secondary   schools;   and   a   mix   of   female   (52.2%)   and   male   (47.8%)   students.       As   mentioned   in   the   previous   chapter,   I   had   prepared   a   coding   sheet   for   the   public  profiles  of  students.  After  the  pre-­‐test,  the  coding  sheet  was  modified  to   include  user  information  revealed  in  private  profiles.       All  500  Singaporean  students’  Facebook  profiles  were  print-­‐screened  and  kept  in   a   folder   in   my   laptop   for   storage   and   reference   purposes.   Keeping   in   line   with   89 ethical   considerations,   the   Facebook   profiles   shall   be   deleted   six   months   post-­‐ completion  of  the  study.       6.3  Addressing  the  research  questions     RQ1:  Do  Singaporean  youths  adopt  privacy  safeguards  in  Facebook?     Number  of  students     Percentage  (out  of  500)   Private  profile   495   99%   Public  profile   5   1%   Real  name   5   1%   Address   0   0%   Photo  album(s)   5   1%   Friend  list   5   1%   Gender   5   1%   Likes  and  interests   5   1%   Location:  Country   5   1%   Birthday   5   1%   Wall  posts/comments   5   1%   Instant  messenger  username   5   1%   Twitter  username   4   0.8%   Blog  link   3   0.6%   Home  number   0   0%   Mobile  number   0   0%   Contact  information  for  Facebook   5   1%   Real  name   425   85%   Address   0   0%   Photo  album(s)   0   0%   Type  of  profile   User  information  posted  in  public  profiles   User  information  posted  for  private  profiles   90 Friend  list   100   20%   Gender   380   76%   Likes  and  interests   70   14%   Location:  Country   20   4%   Birthday   20   4%   Wall  posts/comments   15   3%   Instant  messenger  username   5   1%   Twitter  username   5   1%   Blog  link   15   3%   Home  number   0   0%   Mobile  number   0   0%   Contact  information  for  Facebook   140   28%   Table  6.1:  Types  of  profiles  and  personal  information  revealed   From  Table  6.1,  most  of  the  students’  profiles  (99%)  are  private.  Private  profiles   are  accessed  via  the  public  profiles  of  users  who  are  friends  with  users  of  private   profiles.   The   information   displayed   on   private   profiles   is   usually   more   limited   than  information  in  public  profiles  to  non-­‐friends  like  myself.  From  the  results,   there   are   varying   levels   of   privacy   within   the   private   profiles.   Some   youths   (15%)   use   monikers,   leaving   out   personal   photos   for   their   profiles’   display   photos;  other  youths  have  varied  levels  of  access  to  wall  posts  and  comments.     From  the  500  Facebook  profiles,  it  can  be  surmised  that  most  (99%)  youths  are   aware   of   information   privacy   and   undertake   steps   to   safeguard   their   personal   information  in  Facebook.  One  of  the  most  common  privacy  safeguard  practiced   is   evinced   from   their   profile   settings:   private   (99%)   instead   of   public   (1%)   to   protect  their  personal  information.   91   Having  a  private  profile  implies  that  while  the  user’s  youth’s  profile  can  be  found   in  Facebook,  it  may  not  reflect  all  of  his/her  personal  information  in  Facebook.   One   has   to   request   to   add   the   user   as   a   friend   in   order   to   access   the   rest   of   his/her  personal  information  posted  on  Facebook,  or  be  subject  to  having  access   to   the   same   amount   of   personal   information   disclosed   as   the   other   non-­‐friend   Facebook  users.  Out  of  500  profiles,  only  five  youths  set  their  profiles  as  public   (see   Fig   6.1)   vis   a   vis   the   other   495   youths.   However,   it   should   be   noted   that   although   most   of   the   youths’   profiles   were   private,   there   is   a   range   of   information  privacy  settings  employed  amongst  the  private  profiles.       From   Table   6.1,   we   can   see   that   none   of   the   youths   with   public   profiles   revealed   their   residential   address,   residential   numbers   and   mobile   numbers.   The   number   of  privacy  safeguards  taken  by  youths  with  private  profiles  is  higher  than  those   with   public   profiles.   On   top   of   residential   addresses   and   numbers,   mobile   numbers,  photo  albums  were  also  not  available  for  public  viewing  in  Facebook.   The  extent  and  nature  of  personal  information  disclosure  are  discussed  in  RQ2,   but   from   Table   6.1,   Singaporean   youths   do   adopt   privacy   safeguards   in   Facebook.   92 Fig  6.1:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  public  profile         RQ2:   What   is   the   extent   and   nature   of   information   disclosure   by   Singaporean  youths  on  Facebook?   Basic  identifiers  in  youths’  Facebook  profiles     To   aid   me   in   identifying   a   youth’s   profile   as   belonging   to   a   Singaporean   secondary   school   student,   I   included   the   use   of   identifiers   in   the   youths’   profiles   for   my   content   analysis.   Such   information   was   also   helpful   in   picking   out   the   types   of   personal   information   revealed   by   students.   Basic   identifiers   for   the   youths’  profiles  were  i)  youths’  profile  photos,  ii)  friends  in  the  youths’  profiles   as  well  as  iii)  profile  information  such  as  the  school  networks.     Identifiers  in  youths’  profiles   Number  of  youths   Percentage  (out  of  500)   Youths’  profile  photos   437   87.4%   Pictures  of  friends   63   12.6%   Friends  list   500   100%   School  networks   500   100%   Table  6.2:  Identifiers  in  youths’  Facebook  profiles     As  I  had  to  ascertain  that  the  profile  was  that  of  a  secondary  school  student’s,  a   photo  of  a  youth  in  the  profile  photo  was  insufficient.  Examples  of  identifiers  in   the   profile   photos   include   the   youth   wearing   the   school   uniform   or   at   school   93 events  wearing  the  school  colours.  The  youth  may  identify  himself/herself  with  a   school  network  and  I  checked  the  youth’s  Friends  list  to  confirm  if  the  student  is   currently  a  member  of  the  school  via  his/her  friends’  profiles.       The   rationale   for   the   use   of   multiple   identifiers   is   to   address   situations   when   there  is  a  discrepancy  in  the  personal  information.  A  case  in  question  was  when   a   youth   claimed   to   be   a   member   of   a   particular   secondary   school’s   graduating   class   in   2008   but   had   recent   photos   clearly   depicting   that   he   was   still   a   member   of   the   secondary   school.   Such   incidences   may   arise   in   Singapore,   where   the   concept   of   a   graduating   class   is   still   less   prevalent   than   in   the   USA,   where   Facebook  is  created.  Therefore  the  idea  of  class  of  2008  may  be  construed  to  be  a   member  of  that  school  in  2008  and  not  necessarily  the  graduating  class  of  2008   (refer  to  Fig.  6.2).     Fig.  6.2:  A  Facebook  profile  with  conflicting  personal  information       94 Therefore   from   the   basic   identifiers,   it   can   be   surmised   that   personal   information  revealed  in  Facebook  by  youths  may  not  concur  with  or  reflect  the   truth.   This   will   affect   the   nature   and   extent   of   the   personal   information   revealed   in   Facebook;   it   is   not   only   the   types   of   personal   information   revealed   in   the   youths’  profiles,  the  veracity  of  the  personal  information  has  to  be  checked  too.    To  determine  the  veracity  of  the  personal  information  revealed  in  Facebook,  it  is   advisable  to  double  check  with  other  available  Facebook  personal  information.       Based  on  Table  6.1  (page  88  and  89),  Singaporean  youths  display  a  high  level  of   information   disclosure   in   their   public   profiles.   From   Fig   6.1   and   Table   6.1,   we   can   see   that   youths   with   public   profiles   disclose   personal   information   such   as   their  location  (100%),  blog  address  (60%),  Instant  Messaging  (IM)  (100%)  and   Twitter   usernames   (80%),   gender   (100%),   birthday   (100%),   networks   and   educational   institutions   (100%)   and   more   personal   information   like   photo   albums  (100%).       It   is   also   observed   that   there   is   a   discernible   decrease   in   the   level   of   personal   information  disclosure  in  their  private  profiles  vis  a  vis  their  public  profiles;  the   personal   information   disclosed   is   more   generic,   limited   usually   to   just   gender   (100%)   and   Facebook   contact   information   (100%)   (Fig.   6.2).   However,   while   100%   of   the   youths   reveal   networks   and   educational   institutions,   it   may   be   attributed   to   the   way   the   profiles   were   selected   –   via   schools’   Facebook   networks   and   snowballing   from   youths   who   display   their   school   networks   in   95 Facebook.  School  networks  is  a  less  private  type  of  personal  information  vis  a  vis   home   addresses   and   mobile   numbers;   therefore   it   does   not   affect   the   overall   level  of  personal  information  disclosure  by  youths  in  Facebook.     In   answering   RQ1,   it   was   noted   that   there   exists   different   types   and   levels   of   private  profiles  due  to  the  affordances  provided  by  Facebook  that  allow  youths   to   customize   their   privacy   settings.   Most   (76%)   youths   with   private   profiles   revealed  very  rudimentary  information,  usually  limited  to  real  name,  gender  and   networks  (Fig  6.3).       Fig.  6.3:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  private  profile  with  minimal  personal  information     However,  some  youths  with  private  profiles  also  list  family  members  who  are  on   Facebook,   indicate   their   likes   and   interests   (14%)   and   allow   access   to   their   Friends  lists  (20%)  and  wall  posts  (3%)  (Fig.  6.4).   96   Fig.  6.4:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  private  profile  revealing  more  personal  information     From   Fig.   6.3   and   6.4,   it   can   be   observed   that   some   youths   like   J   Zhao,   reveal   publicly   more   personal   information   in   their   private   profiles   as   compared   to   other  youths  who  own  private  profiles.       Although   real   name   is   one   of   the   most   (86%)   prevalent   piece   of   personal   information   revealed   in   Facebook,   this   does   not   include   youths   such   as   STT   (Fig.   6.5)  who  use  their  real  names  in  their  Facebook  profile  contact  information  but   not   as   their   profile   names.   Other   personal   information   revealed   by   youths   in   their  public  and  private  profiles  include  Gender  (77%),  Contact  information  for   Facebook   (29%),   Likes   and   interests   (15%),   Location   (5%),   Birthday   (5%),   Wall   posts   (4%),   Blog   links   (3.6%),   IM   usernames   (2%),   Twitter   usernames   (1.8%).   None  of  the  private  profiles  listed  the  home  addresses,  home  numbers  or  mobile   numbers.  From  the  above,  it  is  evident  that  youths  are  aware  of  the  information   97 privacy  safeguards  on  Facebook  and  utilize  them.  They  are  also  judicious  about   the  types  of  personal  information  they  allow  to  be  publicly  viewed.     Fig.  6.5:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  private  profile  under  a  moniker     Most   information   such   as   Gender   (77%),   Contact   information   for   Facebook   (29%),  Likes  and  interests  (15%)  that  youths  allow  strangers  access  to  are  less   personal   and   private   and   more   generic,   vis   a   vis   more   private   personal   information   like   Location   (5%),   Birthday   (5%),   Wall   posts   (4%),   Blog   links   (3.6%),  IM  usernames  (2%).       There   seems   to   be   a   privacy   continuum   with   respect   to   the   types   of   personal   information   revealed.   More   sensitive   and   private   personal   information   such   as   location  and  birthdays  are  less  likely  to  be  revealed  by  youths  in  their  Facebook   profiles.   Information   that   enables   strangers   to   establish   direct   online   communication   with   youths   such   as   IM   (2%)   and   Twitter   (1.8%)   are   also   less   likely   to   be   revealed   publicly   on   Facebook.   Contact   information   such   as   98 residential   numbers   and   addresses   that   allow   strangers   to   establish   offline   contact  are  almost  never  revealed  publicly  in  Facebook.       From  the  results  above,  it  can  be  surmised  that  even  though  most  Singaporean   youths   possess   private   Facebook   profiles,   the   concept   of   private   in   Facebook   should  not  be  taken  at  face  value  as  the  deprivation  of  most,  if  not  all,  personal   information   to   all   Facebook   users.   Even   among   youths   who   possess   private   profiles,  some  profiles  are  more  private  than  others.       Therefore,  one  has  to  understand  the  extent  and  nature  of  personal  information   to   make   sense   of   the   information   in   Facebook   profiles.   Generic   personal   information   such   as   gender   and   school   networks   being   revealed   at   a   higher   frequency   in   private   profiles   vis   a   vis   personal   information   which   can   identify   youths   as   individuals   -­‐   locations,   birthdays,   photos.   The   omission   of   such   information   protects   youths   from   online   harassment   and   suggests   that   Singaporean  youths  are  utilizing  Facebook  to  seek  out  and  make  new  friends.       6.3   Observations   from   the   content   analysis   of   Singaporean   youths’   Facebook  profiles     6.3.1  Number  of  friends  on  Facebook   100%   of   youths   with   public   profiles   allow   display   their   Friends;   however,   this   is   not  the  case  for  most  private  profiles.  Most  (80%)  of  the  private  profiles  do  not   display   their   Friends   list.   For   youths   who   display   their   Friends   list   in   their   profiles,  their  number  of  friends  ranges  from  89  to  1395.  It  is  noted  that  youths   99 with   over   1000   friends   in   their   Friends   list   (4.8%)   own   private   profiles   that   furnish  more  than  the  basic  generic  information.       There  was  only  one  exception  where  a  youth’s  profile  (Fig.  6.5)  did  not  provide  a   real   name,   nor   personal   contact   information   aside   from   her   Facebook   contact   information   and   had   a   Friends   list   of   1395.   It   was   STT’s   profile   (Fig.   6.5).   For   STT’s  profile,  although  her  real  name  can  be  deduced  from  her  Facebook  contact   information,  other  Facebook  users  are  unable  to  access  her  wall,  photo  albums   or  email  address/blog  address  unless  they  add  her  as  a  friend  and  she  approves   their  friend  request.     Such   aforementioned   tactics   employed   by   youths   can   demonstrate   how   they   are   savvy  when  it  comes  to  protecting  their  personal  information  on  Facebook.  They   use   monikers   as   their   profile   names   while   leaving   clues   about   their   real   identities   in   their   profile.   Their   friends   on   Facebook   are   able   to   identify   them   from   the   information   they   choose   to   reveal   in   their   profiles:   profile   photos,   location,   etc..   For   example   in   the   case   of   STT,   she   used   her   real   name   for   her   Facebook  profile  contact  information.       6.3.2  Youths’  different  approaches  to  Facebook  information  privacy     Overall,   results   of   the   content   analysis   do   not   indicate   or   attribute   information   privacy  traits  to  specific  student  groups.     For  the  top  three  types  of  personal  information  Table  6.1,  real  name,  gender  and   100 contact  information,  youths  who  reveal  both  gender  and  contact  information  are   also   evenly   distributed   across   the   schools   as   well   as   female   and   male   youths.   However,   for   real   names   revealed   on   Facebook,   it   is   noted   that   students   from   government   schools   (84.9%)   tend   to   not   use   their   real   names   on   Facebook   compared   to   students   from   the   other   schools.   Youths   create   monikers   mixed   with  their  real  names,  for  example,  Sinyee  “Onew”  Lim  (Fig.  6.6)  and  Sharon  de   Tiara  (Fig  6.7)  or  monikers  that  include  local  colloquialisms,  such  as  Gabie  Suaku   (Fig.  6.8).  This  may  be  a  result  of  school  culture,  as  the  abovementioned  students   have  schoolmates  who  follow  similar  monikers  in  their  Friends  list.  For  example,   Sharon  De  Tiara  has  “siblings”  who  are  named  Dinasha  DancingStar  (Fig.  6.7).     Fig.  6.6:  An  example  of  a  youth’s  Facebook  profile  under  a  moniker-­real  name   101   Fig.  6.7:  Another  example  of  a  youth  and  her  friends  who  adopt  moniker-­real  names     Fig  6.8:  An  example  of  a  Facebook  profile  under  a  colloquial  moniker,  “Gabie  Suaku”     While   there   are   no   major   differences   in   the   types   of   personal   information   revealed   in   Facebook   among   youths;   certain   nuances   exist   in   the   way   youths   portray  themselves  on  Facebook,  which  may  vary  among  Singaporean  secondary   schools.   Such   nuances   may   be   attributed   to   different   school   cultures   rather   than   the  overall  Singaporean  youth  culture.                 102 6.4  Contribution  to  existing  literature   6.4.1  SNS  and  youths   From   my   content   analysis,   it   is   observed   that   youths   use   their   Facebook   profiles   to   express   an   aspect   of   their   identity,   may   it   be   their   school   affiliations,   their   friends  or  their  favorite  animae  characters.       Also,  my  analysis  concludes  that  youths  have  control  online  as  they  select  their   personal   information   to   disclose   and   consciously   utilize   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards.  Through  their  Facebook  profiles,  youths  can  construct  their  profiles   for   their   friends   and   peers   to   view   and   are   inclined   to   present   the   side   of   themselves  they  believe  will  be  well  received  by  their  peers  (boyd,  2008;  Stern,   2008).  This  is  evinced  from  youths  selecting  profile  photos  that  emphasize  their   looks,   with   classmates   and   friends   to   emphasize   popularity   and   offline   social   networks   (Fig.   6.9)   and   award   ceremonies   to   emphasize   achievements   (Fig   6.10).     Fig.  6.9:  A  Singaporean  youth’s  Facebook  profile  photo  displaying  her  social  and  school  affiliations   103 Fig  6.10:  A  Singaporean  youth’s  Facebook  profile  photo  emphasizing  on  achievements  in  school     6.4.2  Level  of  information  disclosure  in  SNS   One   of   the   premises   of   this   study   is   to   investigate   the   level   of   personal   information   disclosure   and   my   findings   support   current   literature   on   how   the   problem  of  personal  information  disclosure  on  SNS  may  not  be  as  widespread  as   many   assume   and   that   the   majority   of   youths   are   using   it   responsibly,   as   postulated   by   Hinduja   and   Patchin   (2008).   My   findings   also   agree   with   Wolak,   Mitchell   and   Finkelhor   (2002),   about   close   online   relationships,   as   I   found   that   youths  list  family  members  and  close  friends  as  family  (Fig.  6.11).   Fig  6:11:  Singaporean  youth’s  profile  where  youth  has  parents  as  friends  on  Facebook     My  results  also  contribute  to  Donath  and  boyd’s  2004  finding  on  how  teenagers   fabricate  key  identifying  information  such  as  names,  age  and  location.  From  my   104 results,  most  (86%)  youths  use  their  real  names  in  Facebook  and  choose  to  not   reveal  their  age  or  location.  I  observe  that  youths  create  their  autonomous  space   and   forms   of   communication   that   are   inclined   towards   Buckingham’s   (2008)   suggestion   that   we   are   moving   towards   a   more   creative   and   innovative   generation.   This   is   further   substantiated   by   Singaporean   youths’   novel   use   of   monikers   or   real   names   within   monikers.   Some   youths   have   also   substituted   their   own   photos   with   pictures   of   popular   singers   or   anime   characters,   which   are   creative   ways   of   not   providing   their   personal   information   while   displaying   a   part  of  their  identity  in  terms  of  their  popular  culture  preferences.     6.4.3  Virtual  communities  and  network  effect   From   the   literature,   it   is   suggested   that   personal   connections   present   in   SNS   are   homogenous   in   nature.   This   is   because   when   people   socialize,   they   are   attracted   to   others   similar   to   themselves,   thus   reinforcing   the   possibility   of   homophily   being   present   in   SNS   connections   (Turchi,   2007).   From   the   youths’   profiles,   I   notice  for  photos  depicting  of  a  youth  and  a  friend  or  a  group  of  friends,  90%  of   such   profile   photos   depict   people   who   are   members   of   the   same   age   and   demographic  group  (Fig.  6.12  and  6.13).     My   results   also   resonates   with   Turchi’s   2007   study,   that   homophily   is   present   from   how   Friends   list   indicate   youths   from   the   same   sub-­‐groups;   that   internal   homophily   is   reinforced   when   members   invite   their   friends   whom   they   think   will  fit  in  with  the  image  they  want  to  portray  in  Facebook.  Singaporean  youths   105 even  adopt  similar  monikers  to  create  a  sense  of  community  in  Facebook.  Such   internal  homophily,  is  also  prominent  in  the  profile  photos  (Fig.  6.12  and  6.13).     Fig  6.12:  A  profile  photo  of  a  group  that  belongs  to  the  same  demographic  group     Fig  6.13:  A  profile  photo  of  two  groups  of  Singaporean  youths  that  belong  to  the  same   demographic  group     6.4.4  Identity,  self-­presentation  and  contextualizing  in  SNS   My  findings  also  value  add  to  the  literature  on  identity  and  self-­‐presentation  in   SNS,   such   as   Donath   and   boyd’s   claims   that   the   public   displays   of   connections   reveal   the   unreliability   of   the   information   in   Facebook.   My   findings   indicate   that   the  limited  information  that  is  publicly  available  in  Singaporean  youths’  private   profiles   suggests   that   there   is   a   trend   of   omission   rather   than   publishing   of   unreliable   personal   information.   Youths   who   publish   false   information   such   as   monikers   in   Facebook   do   not   intend   to   lie   or   mislead,   but   use   such   personal   information   to   identify   with   their   friends.   Also,   since   Singaporean   youths   use   106 Facebook  to  reconnect  with  acquaintances  like  friends  and  family,  it  is  counter-­‐ intuitive  to  publish  unreliable  or  false  information.     From  the  profile  photos  and  types  of  personal  information  in  Facebook,  we  can   observe   how   Singaporean   youths   converse   through   profiles.     boyd   and   Heer   (2006)  state  that  youths  in  Facebook  rely  on  interactions  with  other  members  in   order   to   create   the   context   of   a   digital   environment.   From   my   study,   the   information   available   publicly   set   the   context   for   interactions   where   discussions   about   school,   likes   and   interests   occur.   This   can   also   be   applied   to   the   private   profiles   as   well   from   my   findings.   A   private   profile   sets   the   context   for   interaction   to   be   just   between   friends,   family   and   approved   online   friends   in   Facebook.     The   employment   of   privacy   settings   is   related   to   impression   management  and  how  it  is  applied  in  SNS  (Evens,  Gosling  &  Carroll,  2008).     According   to   Tufeckci   (2008),   users   of   SNS   are   heavier   users   of   the   expressive   Internet  and  that  they  pay  more  attention  to  social  details  and  what  other  users   say.  Results  from  my  study  support  this:  Singaporean  youths  who  use  Facebook   are  more  attuned  to  social  information,  which  explains  the  customization  of  their   Facebook   profiles   to   display   positive   attributes,   as   well   as   enabling   their   privacy   settings   to   prevent   strangers   from   accessing   their   personal   information   and   criticizing  their  photos  or  wall  comments.           107 6.4.5  Privacy,  surveillance  and  legal  issues   Gross   and   Acquisti’s   (2005)   as   well   as   Rodrigues’   (2008)   concerns   about   the   amount  of  information  Facebook  users  provide  about  themselves,  the  relatively   open  nature  of  the  information  and  lack  of  privacy  control  activated  by  the  users   are  not  substantiated  by  my  content  analysis  findings.       The  prevailing  concern  of  SNS  users  exposing  themselves  to  offline  (e.g.  stalking)   and  online  (e.g.  identity  theft)  risks  is  not  an  issue  with  Singaporean  youths  as   none   of   them   reveal   their   home   address,   home   telephone   number   or   mobile   numbers   publicly   in   Facebook.   Singaporean   youths   who   reveal   online   personal   contact   information   such   as   instant   messaging   usernames   are   also   in   the   minority  (5%).     Finally,  the  findings  from  the  content  analysis  also  support  the  literature  of  the   MySpace  study  conducted  by  Dwyer,  Hiltz  and  Passernini  (2007),  who  put  forth   that   online   relationships   can   develop   in   sites   where   privacy   safeguards   are   weak,   as   evinced   from   how   some   of   the   youths’   Friends   list   display   over   1000   friends.         6.5  Laying  groundwork  for  online  surveys   From   the   content   analysis,   questions   pertaining   to   the   types   of   personal   information  revealed  in  Facebook  as  well  as  the  breakdown  of  private  and  public   Facebook  profiles  among  Singaporean  youths  have  been  answered.  Although  the   results  of  the  content  analysis  demonstrate  that  Singaporean  youths  are  aware   108 of   and   utilize   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards,   there   is   need   to   examine   the   extent   of  information  revealed,  even  for  private  profiles.   Using   the   results   from   the   content   analysis   as   a   framework,   online   surveys   for   the   youths   were   created   to   obtain   their   privacy   attitudes   as   well   as   utilization   of   Facebook   settings.   This   will   help   to   facilitate   better   understanding   of   youths’   privacy   perceptions   and   personal   information   disclosure   based   on   the   findings   of  content  analysis  and  the  online  surveys.     Chapter  7:  Findings  and  discussion  –  Online  Surveys   7.1  Overview  of  chapter   The   findings   and   analysis   of   the   content   analysis   were   discussed   in   the   previous   chapter.   From   the   content   analysis,   I   gleaned   a   micro-­‐perspective   of   how   Singaporean   youths   managed   their   Facebook   profiles   via   their   utilization   of   privacy   settings.   The   results   also   provided   foundation   for   survey   questions   investigating   the   use   of   privacy   settings;   as   well   as   surmising   Singaporean   youths’  attitudes  towards  personal  information  disclosure  and  online  privacy.       In  this  chapter,  findings  from  the  online  surveys  for  parents  and  youths  shall  be   used  to  address  RQ2,  RQ3,  RQ4  and  RQ5  (refer  to  page  55).    Some  themes  that   were   covered   by   the   survey   questions   include:   i)   youths’   attitude   towards   disclosing   their   personal   information   online   and   their   online   privacy   perceptions,   ii)   parents’   attitudes   towards   disclosing   personal   information   online  and  their  online  privacy  perceptions,  as  well  as  iii)  discrepancies,  if  any,   109 between  the  attitudes  and  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths.  This  chapter  shall   then  proceed  to  conclude  with  how  the  survey  findings  contribute  to  the  existing   literature  of  SNS  and  related  topics.     7.2  Representativeness  of  survey  participants  and  data  storage   One  of  the  aims  of  conducting  online  surveys  for  both  Singaporean  parents  and   youths   is   to   aid   in   understanding   their   attitudes   and   values.   For   the   youths,   understanding   their   attitudes   and   values   towards   online   privacy   and   information   disclosure   would   aid   in   comprehending   how   they   utilize   Facebook’s   privacy   settings.   Since   most   of   the   youths’   Facebook   profiles   for   the   content   analysis  are  set  to  private,  the  online  surveys  will  aid  in  understanding  types  of   personal  information  revealed  in  the  private  profiles.       Both   surveys   were   conducted   via   snowball   sampling   of   Singaporean   secondary   school  students  and  parents  with  children  of  secondary  school-­‐going  age.  There   were   more   female   (73.6%)   than   male   (26.4%)   youth   respondents   from   independent/autonomous   (17.3%)   and   government   (82.7%)   schools.   There   were   also   more   female   (68%)   than   male   parent   respondents   (32%)   with   most   (91.2%)  of  them  in  white-­‐collared  industries.     Both  the  online  surveys  were  created  using  survey  software  and  the  results  were   stored  in  the  servers  till  the  end  of  the  data  collection.  The  results  of  the  surveys   were  downloaded  from  the  servers  at  the  end  of  the  data  collection  and  saved  in   my  laptop  for  data  compilation  and  analyses  using  statistical  software.     110   7.3  Addressing  the  research  questions       RQ2:   What   is   the   extent   and   nature   of   information   disclosure   by   Singaporean  youths?     Types   of   information   I   post   on   my   Facebook  profile   My  name   My  school  name   My  email  address   My  home  address   My  mobile  number   My  blog  address/website   Twitter/Plurk  username   My  instant  messenger  (IM)  username   Personal  picture  of  myself   Number  of  youths  (n=258)   249   144   178   4   13   59   17   38   173   Percentage   students   96.5%   55.7%   68.8%   1.6%   4.9%   22.9%   6.6%   14.7%   67.2%   of   Table  7.1:  Types  of  information  Singaporean  youths  post  in  Facebook     From  the  survey  results,  there  are  more  public  Facebook  profiles  (34%)  among   Singaporean  youths  as  compared  to  the  results  from  the  content  analysis  (1%).  A   possible   reason   for   this   considerable   disparity   may   be   due   to   the   network   sampling  method  employed  for  content  analysis.  Encountering  youths  who  own   private  Facebook  profiles  where  they  reveal  their  school  networks  would  likely   lead  me  to  their  friends  on  Facebook  who  also  reveal  their  school  networks  on   their  private  Facebook  profiles.         Blog   IM   Twitter   Home   Residential   Mobile   Home   Email   address   username   username   Address   area   number   number   address   13   4   0   165   13   38   21   8   2   17   4   0   17   51   80   93   0   3   17   4   4   38   17   89   89   4   4   25   42   4   8   85   30   30   38   5   55   34   38   8   34   4   13   76   6   42   93   21   0   51   4   0   51   7   80   51   38   17   17   0   8   51   8   (Least   68   8   144   0   13   4   0   25   1(Most   private)   private)   Table  7.2:  Privacy  values  attached  to  types  of  personal  information  in  Facebook   111 From   the   two   tables   above,   we   can   see   that   Singaporean   youths   generally   reveal   in   their   Facebook   profiles   online   personal   information   that   they   feel   are   less   private,   from   the   ranking   in   Table   7.2:   email   address,   IM   username   and   blog   address.   Based   on   the   content   analysis,   the   types   of   offline   personal   information   posted  in  Facebook  are  limited  to  real  names  and  photos.  Most  (79%)  youths  use   their  photos  as  profile  photos  and  their  real  names  in  Facebook.     Also,   from   Tables   7.1   and   7.2,   we   are   able   to   discern   the   top   four   types   of   personal   information   youths   deem   most   private,   in   descending   order:   home   address,  home  number,  mobile  number  and  residential  area,  which  are  also  the   least   frequent   personal   information   disclosed   in   Facebook   in   both   public   and   private  profiles.     Thus,   we   can   conclude   that   youths   view   their   offline   personal   information   as   more   private   than   their   online   personal   information.   This   is   indicative   of   their   attitudes   towards   online   privacy:   as   they   are   less   likely   to   share   their   offline   personal   information   vis   a   vis   their   online   personal   information   in   an   online   environment.   This   attitude   is   extended   to   their   status   updates,   where   26%   of   youths  reveal  their  physical  location  in  their  Facebook.       Given   the   nature   of   the   online   environment,   youths   were   also   asked   about   the   veracity   of   their   personal   information   in   Facebook.   The   results   are   tabulated   below:     112 Types  of  profile  information  which  are  true   Number  of  youths  (n=258)   School   165   Name   211   Age   118   Email  Address   178   Mobile  number   8   Home  address   2   Personal  information:  Likes,  activities,  favorites   165   Date  of  birth   199   Education  and  work   131   Table  7.3:  Veracity  of  personal  information  that  Singaporean  youths  post  on  Facebook   From  Table  7.3,  we  can  see  that  other  types  of  offline  personal  information  that   youths  post  in  Facebook  include  their  date  of  birth  (199)  and  education-­‐related   information   (131).   The   discrepancy   between   age   (118)   and   date   of   birth   (119)   may  be  attributed  to  Facebook’s  policy  of  only  allowing  teenagers  13  and  above   register   for   a   Facebook   account,   which   may   result   in   youths   including   only   the   month   and   day   without   displaying   their   birth   year.   The   discrepancy   between   Tables   7.1   and   7.3   for   mobile   number   (13   versus   8)   and   home   address   (4   versus   2)  suggest  that  the  offline  personal  information  in  Facebook  may  not  be  true.       Based  on  the  survey  results,  only  a  few  youths  reveal  their  home  address  (2%)   and  mobile  number  (5%)  in  their  Facebook  profiles.  This  is  somewhat  consistent   with  the  findings  of  the  content  analysis;  where  it  was  observed  that  youths  who   post  their  mobile  numbers  in  Facebook  have  private  profiles,  where  only  family   members  and  friends  have  access.     113 Therefore,  from  the  findings,  it  may  be  concluded  that  in  terms  of  the  nature  of   personal   information   posted   in   Facebook,   youths   are   more   forthcoming   with   sharing   their   online   than   their   offline   contact   information.   Youths   are   more   likely   to   post   the   truth   about   their   schools,   names,   email   addresses,   dates   of   birth  and  their  preferences  and  activities  in  Facebook.       RQ3:   To   what   extent   are   Singaporean   parents   aware   of   the   nature   of   information  disclosure  that  their  teenage  children  reveal  in  Facebook?     In   order   to   understand   the   extent   to   which   Singaporean   parents   are   aware   of   their   teenage   children’s   nature   of   information   disclosure   in   Facebook,   we   need   to  ascertain  parents’  knowledge  of  their  children’s  level  of  information  privacy  in   Facebook.   To   achieve   that,   we   need   to   establish   what   the   parents   think   their   youths  are  posting  on  Facebook  and  compare  it  to  what  the  youths  are  posting.       Similar   questions   were   posed   in   the   online   surveys   to   both   the   parents   and   youths:   parents   were   also   asked   basic   questions   on   how   familiar   they   are   with   Facebook;   if   they   owned   a   Facebook   account,   their   Facebook   privacy   settings;   whether   they   speak   to   their   children   about   information   privacy   protection   online,   and   whether   they   are   aware   of   their   teenage   children   using   Facebook’s   privacy  settings.     Topics   discussed   with   your   teenage   children   Number   of   parents   Percentage   about  online  safety   (n=101)   parents   Revealing  personal  information  online   101   100%   Chatting  with  strangers   91   90.9%   Posting  pictures  and  videos  of  themselves  online   82   81.2%   Revealing  their  whereabouts  and  activities  online   82   81.2%   of   Table  7.4:  Topics  about  online  safety  that  parents  discuss  with  their  teenagers   114   Steps  to  enhance  your  teenager  children’s  online  safety   Talk  to  my  teenager  about  online  safety   Number   of   Percentage   parents  (n=101)   of  parents   101   100%   Show   my   teenager   reports   of   online   bullying,   incidences   90   89.1%   harassment,  etc.   Install  software  to  monitor  my  teenager’s  online  activities.   47   46.5%   Install   software   to   prevent   my   teenager   from   accessing   certain   38   37.7%   websites.   Restrict  usage  of  computer  to  schoolwork,  checking  of  email.   21   20.7%   I  do  not  do  any  of  the  above,  I  believe  my  teenager  is  safe  online.   21   20.7%   Table  7.5:  Steps  taken  by  parents  to  enhance  their  teenagers’  online  safety     From  Tables  7.4  and  7.5,  100%  of  have  heard  of  Facebook  and  82%  of  them  are   on   Facebook.   Of   the   parents   who   are   on   Facebook,   all   of   them   have   set   their   Facebook  privacy  settings  to  medium  and  high,  which  support  that  most  parents   understand   the   workings   of   the   privacy   settings   and   are   mostly   privacy-­‐ oriented.       From   Tables   7.4   and   7.5,   100%   of   parents   have   spoken   to   their   children   about   protecting   personal   information   online,   with   the   most   frequent   online   safety   discussion   topics   being   revealing   personal   information   online   (100%)   and   chatting   with   strangers   online   (90.9%).   From   the   tables,   it   is   also   noted   that   Singaporean   parents   favour   non-­‐technical   methods   to   enhance   their   teenagers’   online   safety,   such   as   talking   to   them   (100%)   and   showing   them   incidences   of   online   dangers   (89%)   over   installing   software   (46.5%)   and   restricting   their   teenage   children’s   online   activities   (20.7%).   This   demonstrates   the   trust   that   parents  have  in  their  teenage  children  when  it  comes  to  online  safety.   115   Out   of   the   101   parents   who   completed   the   survey,   82%   claim   to   be   aware   of   their   teenage   children   possessing   a   SNS   profile   and   64%   are   aware   of   their   teenage  children  using  Facebook  privacy  settings.  However,  bearing  in  mind  that   in   surveys,   respondents   tend   to   overstate   their   claims,   questions   that   test   parents’   knowledge   of   their   children’s   Facebook   information   privacy   were   also   asked.  For  personal  information  disclosure  in  Facebook,  82%  of  parents  believe   that   their   children   use   real   names   in   Facebook,   vis   a   vis   82%   (Table   6.3)   of   youths  who  use  their  real  name  in  their  Facebook  profiles.  From  this,  it  can  be   postulated   that   most   parents   are   aware   of   the   basic   types   of   personal   information  disclosure  by  youths  in  Facebook.   How   often   do   you   think   your   child   uses   Number   of   parents   Percentage  of  parents     Facebook?   (n=101)   A  few  times  a  month   9   8.9%   A  few  times  a  week   37   36.6%   Daily   28   27.7%   More  than  once  a  day   27   26.7%   Table  7.6:  Parents’  impression  of  their  teenage  children’s  Facebook  usage     How  often  do  you  use  Facebook?   Number   of   youths   Percentage   (n=258)   youths   A  few  times  a  month   13   4.9%   A  few  times  a  week   102   39.5%   Daily   84   32.6%   More  than  once  a  day   59   22.8%   of   Table  7.7:  Youths’  Facebook  usage           116     Types   of   information   your   teenager   Number   of   parents   Percentage   posts  in  his/her  Facebook  profile   (n=101)   parents     Blog  address   56   55.4%   Instant  messaging  (IM)  username   48   47.5%   Twitter  username   3   3.0%   Home  address   37   36.6%   Residential  address   37   36.6%   Mobile  number   0   0%   Home  number   0   0%   Email  address   97   96%   of   Table  7.8:  Types  of  information  parents  think  their  teenage  children  post  in  Facebook   Comparing  the  results  of  the  parents’  knowledge  of  youths’  information  privacy   vis  a  vis  the  youths’  answers  to  similar  questions  in  the  tables  above,  the  most   common  types  of  information  youths  (Table  7.1)  post  in  their  Facebook  profiles   are   email   addresses,   blog   addresses,   IM   and   Twitter   usernames,   which   is   the   same  order  as  what  parents  think  youths  reveal  in  Facebook  (Table  7.8).     In   terms   of   their   knowledge   on   their   teenage   children’s   Facebook   habits,   64%   of   parents  think  their  teenage  children  are  on  Facebook  everyday  or  a  few  times  a   week.  This  observation  concurs  with  the  youths’  responses  on  their  frequency  of   Facebook   usage   (Table   7.7).   This   lends   credence   to   the   parents’   claim   on   possessing  an  understanding  of  their  teenage  children’s  Facebook  usage.     However,   from   Table   7.8,   37%   of   parents   think   their   teenage   children   reveal   their   home   address,   when   only   2%   of   youths   reveal   it   in   their   Facebook   profiles.   Interestingly,  parents  do  not  think  that  their  teenage  children  post  information   117 such   as   their   home   and   mobile   numbers   on   their   Facebook   profiles,   which   is   contrary  to  what  youths  claim  to  reveal  about  themselves  in  Facebook.  Although   a  minority,  some  youths  (5%)  do  reveal  their  mobile  numbers  in  Facebook.     Perhaps   a   reason   as   to   why   Singaporean   parents   in   general   have   a   good   understanding   of   their   teenage   children’s   Facebook   personal   information   disclosure   and   habits   stem   from   their   teenage   children   being   their   source   of   knowledge  about  online  safety  (Table  7.9).     Conversations   Newspapers   Friends   Family   Magazines   Schools   Government   Internet   Books   90   21   0   0   0   3   4   0   0   2   10   33   0   36   0   9   0   0   0   3   0   17   21   17   11   3   6   20   0   4   0   20   27   0   11   26   5   0   7   5   0   0   11   18   26   0   31   6   0   6   0   10   11   12   14   30   0   0   17   7   0   0   31   3   26   0   7   31   0   8   0   0   10   4   0   27   8   18   18   9   (Least   1   0   0   1   0   0   19   7   38     with  my  children   1   (Most   frequent  )   frequent)   Table  7.9:  Parents’  most  frequent  sources  of  information  for  online  safety   Parents’  top  three  sources  of  information  for  online  safety,  in  descending  order,   are:   conversations   with   children;   family;   friend.   It   seems   like   word   of   mouth   works  better  for  parents  than  official  sources  such  as  magazines  or  books.  This   suggests   that   online   safety   discussions   between   parents   and   youths   are   not   one-­‐ way  dialectic  discussions,  but  rather,  a  two-­‐way  communication  process  where   parents  learn  from  them  as  well.     118 Overall,   some   Singaporean   parents   demonstrate   a   good   understanding   of   their   children’s   Facebook   habits   and   the   personal   information   their   youths   disclose   in   Facebook.   However,   Singaporean   parents   are   aware   that   some   youths   post   their   home  addresses  and  mobile  numbers.  Instead  of  dismissing  Singaporean  parents   as   unaware;   from   the   way   the   question   was   posed   in   the   survey,   parents   may   believe   that   other   youths   post   their   home   addresses   and   mobile   numbers   on   Facebook,  but  not  their  own  youths.       RQ4:  How  safe  do  Singaporean  parents  perceive  their  teenage  children  to   be  in  Facebook?   Singaporean   parents   are   generally   concerned   about   their   teenage   children’s   safety  online,  with  36%  of  parents  who  do  not  think  that  their  teenage  children   are  safe  online  from  harassment  from  strangers  and  90%  who  do  not  think  that   Facebook  is  safe  for  posting  personal  information.       However,   Singaporean   parents   mitigate   their   concerns   by   keeping   abreast   of   their   youths’   online   activities   by   talking   to   them   about   online   safety   (100%)   and   showing  them  reports  of  online  bullying  and  harassment  (89.1%)  (Table  7.5).     Although   parents   are   involved   in   their   youths’   online   safety   education,   64.4%   find   it   difficult   to   monitor   their   youths’   activities   online   and   92%   feel   that   schools  should  take  on  a  bigger  role  in  educating  youths  about  online  safety.   Concerns  about  teenage  child’s  online  social  interactions   Spending  too  much  time  online  at  the  expense  of  schoolwork   Number   of   parents  (n=101)   73   Percentage   of   parents   72.3%   Meeting  strangers  online   37   36.6%   Making  friends  with  unsavory  characters  online   18   17.8%   Spending  too  much  time  online  at  the  expense  of  other  offline   activities   55   54.5%   119 Spending  too  much  time  online  at  the  expense  of  sleep  and  health   83   82.2%   Me  as  a  parent  not  knowing  what  my  child  is  doing  online   28   27.7%   My  child  posting  too  much  personal  information  (mobile  number,   27   26.7%   address)  online   Table  7.10:  Parental  concerns  about  teenage  children’s  online  social  interactions     From  Table  7.10,  when  it  comes  to  the  aspects  of  their  teenage  children’s  online   social   interactions,   parents   are   more   concerned   that   their   teenage   children   are   spending  too  much  time  online  at  the  expense  of  sleep  and  health  (82.2%)  and   schoolwork   (72.3%);   rather   than   their   children   meeting   strangers   online   (36.6%)   or   their   children   posting   too   much   personal   information   online   (26.7%).     How  Facebook  aids  in  your  child’s  development   Number  of  parents   Percentage   of   (n=101)   parents   Develop  better  social  skills   64   63.4%   Promote  more  interaction  with  peers   73   72.3%   Understand  how  the  Internet  works   46   45.5%   Be  up  to  date  on  technological  trends   55   54.5%   Help  with  projects  and  school  assignments   46   45.5%   Keep  in  touch  with  friends  and  classmates   92   91.1%   Table  7.11:  Parents’  perceptions  of  how  Facebook  aids  in  teenage  children’s  development     Besides   Singaporean   parents’   concerns   about   Facebook,   from   Table   7.11,   Singaporean   parents   acknowledge   that   Facebook   can   aid   in   their   children’s   development   by   helping   them   keep   in   touch   with   friends   and   classmates   (91.1%),   promoting   more   interaction   with   peers   (72.3%)   while   developing   better  social  skills  (63.4%).     120 Overall,  Singaporean  parents  are  skeptical  about  their  teenage  children’s  safety   in  Facebook.  However,  their  cautiousness  is  tempered  with  an  acceptance  of  how   they  are  unable  to  keep  an  eye  on  their  teenage  children’s  activities  online  all  the   time.  Singaporean  parents  are  not  passive:  they  discuss  with  their  youths  about   online   safety.   Singaporean   parents   also   acknowledge   the   benefits   of   Facebook   for   their   youths’   development   and   prioritizing   physical   and   mental   well-­‐being   highly  when  it  comes  to  youths  and  the  Internet.     RQ5:  Are  there  disparities  between  youths’  and  parents’  perceptions  of  the   risks  of  information  disclosure  vis  a  vis  Facebook?   In   order   to   gain   a   better   understanding   of   youths’   and   parents’   perceptions   of   the   risks   of   information   disclosure   in   Facebook,   their   attitudes   and   privacy   values  were  assessed.       Parents’   and   youths’   attitudes   towards   privacy   were   determined   using   a   five-­‐ point   Likert   scale   attitude   survey.   During   computing   of   the   responses   for   data   analysis,   “Strongly   agree/Agree”   and   Strongly   disagree/Disagree”   responses   were   pooled,   to   create   three   major   columns,   not   five.   This   is   to   get   a   general   sense   of   the   respondents’   privacy   perceptions.   They   are   broken   down   into   three   sets  of  figures:  the  mean,  female  and  male  responses  (Table  7.12).   Group  Statistics     Gender   Privacy  Perception   Female   N   Mean   Std.  Deviation   Std.  Error  Mean   190   2.3184   .72003   .05224   Mean   Male   68    Table  7.12:  Privacy  perceptions  of  youths     2.3456   .63632   .07717   121   The  privacy  perceptions  of  males  (M  =  2.35,  SE  =  0.077),  are  similar  to  females   youths   (M   =   2.32,   SE   =   0.052).   The   lower   the   mean,   the   more   privacy-­‐oriented   the   individual.   The   distribution   between   females   and   males   is   also   mixed,   with   more  female  (N  =  190)  than  male  youths  (N  =  68)  participating  in  the  study.       Group  Statistics     Category   Privacy  Perception   d Mean   i N   Mean   Std.  Deviation   Std.  Error  Mean   Student   258   2.3256   .69783   .04345   Parents   101   2.7178   1.00602   .10010   m e n s i o n 1   Table  7.13:  Privacy  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths  –  Independent-­samples  t  Test       Independent  Samples  Test   Levene's  Test  for  Equality  of     Variances   F   Privacy  Perception   Equal  variances  assumed   Sig.   17.719   .000       Mean   Equal  variances  not  assumed   Table  7.14:  Privacy  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths  –  Independent-­samples  t  Test     Independent  Samples  Test     Privacy  Perception   Equal  variances  assumed   t-­‐test  for  Equality  of  Means   t   -­‐4.197   df   Sig.  (2-­‐tailed)   357   Mean   Equal  variances  not  assumed   -­‐3.594   139.297   Table  7.15:  Privacy  perceptions  of  parents  and  youths  –  Independent-­samples  t  Test     .000   .000   122 From   the   above   tables,   an   independent-­‐samples   t   test   comparing   the   mean   scores   of   the   parents   and   youths   found   a   significant   difference   between   the   means  of  the  two  groups  (t(357)=-­‐4.19,  p  <  .001).  The  mean  of  the  parents  was   higher   (m=2.72,   sd=1.00)   than   the   youths   (m=2.33,   sd=.70).   The   t-­‐test   revealed   that  parents  are  significantly  more  guarded  about  privacy  (M  =  2.72,  SE  =  0.10)   than  youths  (M  =  2.33,  SE  =  0.043),  t(357)  =  -­‐4.19,  p  <  .001,  r  =  .22.     After   gleaning   an   understanding   of   Singaporean   youths’   general   online   privacy   perceptions   vis   a   vis   parents,   I   proceeded   to   segment   the   parents   and   youths   according   to   their   privacy   values   using   the   Westin   privacy   segmentation   into   three   groups:   privacy   fundamentalists,   privacy   pragmatics   and   privacy   unconcerneds.  Both  parents  and  youths  were  asked  a  series  of  questions  based   on  the  Westin  classification.       Based   on   their   responses,   parents   and   youths   are   mapped   to   the   Westin   privacy   segmentation   (Harris,   2003),   which   divides   the   population   into   three   groups   based  on  their  level  of  concern  with  regard  to  privacy.       From   these   five   questions,   a   youth   or   parent   is   classified   as   a   Privacy   Fundamentalist   if   he/she   gave   a   privacy-­‐oriented   response   to   at   least   three   of   these   five   questions.   The   lower   the   mean,   the   more   privacy-­‐oriented   an   individual   is.   This   is   because   the   lower   the   mean,   the   more   the   individual   strongly   agrees/agrees   with   privacy-­‐oriented   statements.   Privacy   Pragmatists   123 rate   their   concern   about   privacy   in   their   everyday   lives,   online   privacy   and   information  privacy  significantly  lower  than  Privacy  Fundamentalists  (p  <  .05  for   all),  resulting  in  a  higher  privacy  perception  mean  for  Privacy  Pragmatists  than   Privacy   Fundamentalists.   Privacy   Unconcerned   parents   and   youths   rate   the   same   questions   significantly   higher   than   Privacy   Pragmatists   (p   <   .05   for   all),   resulting  in  higher  mean  for  Privacy  Unconcerneds  than  Privacy  Pragmatists.     Parents  and  youths  are  categorized  based  on  their  answers  to  these  questions:     i)   For   the   purpose   of   this   study,   privacy   is   defined   as   “personal   information   which   is   confined   to   or   intended   only   for,   a   certain   person/group   of   people,   and  not  anyone  else”.  State  your  level  of  agreement  with  this  statement.         ii) In  general,  you  are  concerned  about  your  privacy  when  using  the  Internet.   iii) Facebook   is   not   safe   for   the   posting   of   personal   information   (mobile   number,  addresses).   iv)  It  is  important  to  maintain  personal  information  privacy  (e.g.  mobile  number,   contact  information)  in  Facebook.   v) I  can  count  on  Facebook  to  protect  my  privacy.   Reliability  Statistics   Cronbach's  Alpha   N  of  Items   .668   5   Table  7.16:  Cronbach’s  alpha  for  Westin  privacy  segmentation     124 Item  Statistics     Mean   Facebook  is  not  safe  for  the  posting  of  personal  information   (mobile  number,  addresses).   I  feel  it  is  important  to  maintain  information  privacy  (e.g.   mobile  number,  contact  information)  in  Facebook.     In   general,   you   are   concerned   with   your   privacy   while   using  the  Internet.     I  can  count  on  Facebook  to  protect  my  privacy.     Std.  Deviation   N   2.9612   1.06521   258   1.6899   .84428   258   1.8760   .81339   258   3.1008   1.09718   258   For  the  purpose  of  this  study,  privacy  is  defined  as  “personal   1.6899   .84428   information  that  is  confined  to  or  intended  only  for,  a   certain  person/group  of  people,  and  not  anyone  else”.  State   your  level  of  agreement  with  this  statement.     Table  7.17:  Reliability  statistics  for  Westin  privacy  segmentation  dimensions  –  youths     258   From   the   statistical   analysis   conducted   on   the   questions   posed   to   parents   and   youths,  the  five  questions  are  shown  to  display  internal  consistency  based  on  the   value   of   Cronbach’s   α.   Cronbach’s   α   indicates   how   the   above   statements   are   related   based   on   the   concept   of   privacy.   The   reliability   coefficient   for   the   five   questions  show  high  reliability,  Cronbach’s  α  =  .67.       From  the  item  statistics,  we  can  see  that  for  Singaporean  youths,  their  mean  for   questions  on  general  privacy,  information  privacy  and  online  privacy  is  less  than   two,   which   means   that   most   of   the   youth   respondents   are   privacy-­‐oriented.   However,   they   maintain   a   neutral   position   on   questions   pertaining   to   trusting   Facebook  with  their  personal  information.       Westin  privacy  segmentation  -­  Youths     Statistics     Category   N   Valid   258   Mean   1.4109   Mode   1.00     125 Category     Frequency   Valid   Percent   Valid  Percent   Cumulative  Percent   1.00   160   44.6   62.0   62.0   2.00   90   25.1   34.9   96.9   3.00   8   2.2   3.1   100.0   258   71.9   100.0   258   100.0   Total   Total         Table  7.18:  Percentage  of  youths  who  are  Privacy  Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds     From   the   above   results,   Categories   1,   2   and   3   refer   to   respondents’   privacy   orientation   based   on   the   mean   of   the   five   questions.   Category   1   respondents   are   Privacy  Fundamentalists,  Category  2  Privacy  Pragmatists  and  Category  3  Privacy   Unconcerneds.   From   Table   7.18,   it   can   be   surmised   from   the   mean   that   youths   privacy-­‐oriented.   Most   youths   are   Privacy   Fundamentalists   (44.6%)   and   Privacy   Pragmatists  (25.1%),  with  8%  Privacy  Unconcerneds.       From   the   findings,   it   can   be   surmised   that   youths   do   value   privacy.   Also,   the   privacy   values   in   their   everyday   life   are   extended   to   their   privacy   perceptions   online  and  encompass  the  protection  of  their  personal  information  on  Facebook.       Westin  privacy  segmentation  -­  Parents   Statistics   Category   N   Mean   Valid   101                1.534   126 Statistics   Category   N   Valid   Mean   101                1.534   Mode   1.00     Category     Frequency   Valid   Valid  Percent   Cumulative  Percent   1.00   92   91.1   91.1   91.1   2.00   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   3.00   9   8.9   8.9   100.0   101   101   100.0   101   100.0   Total   Total   Percent         Table  7:19:  Percentage  of  parents  who  are  Privacy  Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds     The   results   for   Singaporean   parents   indicate   that   most   (91.1%)   parents   are   Privacy  Fundamentalists  and  9%  Privacy  Unconcerneds.  It  is  interesting  to  note   for  parents,  there  are  no  Privacy  Pragmatists.  This  seems  to  indicate  a  disparity   among  parents  when  it  comes  to  privacy-­‐orientation.     It   is   not   unexpected   that   is   a   higher   percentage   of   parents   who   are   Privacy   Fundamentalists   compared   to   the   youths.   Since   the   privacy   attitudes   mean   for   both  parents  and  youths  are  less  than  two,  both  groups  are  privacy-­‐oriented  and   concerned  about  their  offline/online  privacy  and  information  privacy.       127 However,   parents   are   more   skeptical   when   it   comes   to   trusting   Facebook   with   their   personal   information,   with   99%   Privacy   Fundamentalists   while   25.1%   of   youths   taking   on   a   more   Privacy   Pragmatist   perspective.   Therefore,   youths   are   more   likely   than   their   parents   to   post   their   personal   information   on   Facebook,   even  though  54%  of  youths  have  not  read  Facebook’s  privacy  policy.   One-­way  ANOVA  –  Parents  and  youths   Privacy  Perception  Mean     Sum  of  Squares   Between  Groups   df   Mean  Square   F   11.867   3   3.956   Within  Groups   225.660   356   .636   Total   237.526   359     Sig.   6.223   .000             Multiple  Comparisons   Privacy  Perception  Mean     LSD   (I)  Gender   (J)  Gender   Mean  Difference  (I-­‐J)   Female  Student   Male  Student   Female  Parent   Male  Parent   Std.  Error   Sig.   Male  Student   -­‐.02717   .11267   .810   Female  Parent   -­‐.33783*   .11523   .004   Male  Parent   -­‐.50590*   .14327   .000   .02717   .11267   .810   Female  Parent   -­‐.31066*   .13885   .026   Male  Parent   -­‐.47874*   .16287   .004   Female  Student   .33783*   .11523   .004   Male  Student   .31066*   .13885   .026   Male  Parent   -­‐.16807   .16466   .308   Female  Student   .50590*   .14327   .000   Male  Student   .47874*   .16287   .004   Female  Student   Female  Parent   .16807   .16466   Table  7.20:  Comparison  of  privacy  perception  means  across  gender  for  parents  and  youths   .308   128 A  one-­‐way  ANOVA  was  computed  comparing  the  privacy  perceptions  of  parents   and   youths,   as   well   as   among   parents   and   youths,   segmented   by   gender   as   an   independent   variable.   The   analysis   revealed   that   there   is   no   significant   difference  between  parents  and  youths  (F(3,  355)=  6.22,  p  <  .01).       Additional   findings   from   the   online   surveys   indicate   that   although   72%   of   student  respondents  are  concerned  about  the  consequences  of  sharing  personal   information   on   Facebook,   there   exists   a   conundrum.   31.4%   of   youths   do   not   trust   Facebook   with   the   safekeeping   of   their   personal   information   and   19.8%   feel  that  it  is  important  to  maintain  information  privacy  in  Facebook,  yet  youths   are  still  posting  their  personal  information  in  Facebook.     While  parents  and  youth  assent  with  their  general  perceptions  of  online  privacy,   a   palpable   difference   in   Facebook   privacy   perceptions   exists,   with   90%   of   parents   who   are   critical   of   information   privacy   in   Facebook   vis   a   vis   31.4%   of   youths.   This   difference   may   be   explained   by   how   youths   (67%)   feel   that   their   friends  are  able  to  understand  them  better  via  Facebook,   which  is  why  although   youths   do   not   fully   trust   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards,   they   still   post   their   personal   information.   However,   the   types   of   personal   information   posted   by   youths   in   Facebook   may   be   affected,   as   evinced   from   how   most   youths   do   not   post   personal   information   such   as   their   residential   address   and   mobile   numbers   in  Facebook.     129 7.4  Discussion  from  findings  of  online  surveys     7.4.1  Youths’  self-­assessment  of  Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards     From  the  literature  on  privacy  surveys,  one  of  the  common  challenges  of  privacy   surveys   is   the   tendency   of   subjects   to   over-­‐report   their   understanding   of   privacy-­‐related   issues   and   their   willingness   to   act   in   order   to   protect   their   privacy.     In   the   context   of   this   study,   youths   may   feel   that   the   onus   is   on   them   and   not   Facebook   to   protect   their   personal   information.   Therefore   there   is   need   to   assess  youths  on  their  knowledge  on  Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards.       In  order  to  determine  if  a  perception  gap  is  present,  a  knowledge  challenge  was   included  in  the  survey.  The  challenge  was  based  on  one  of  the  most  commonly   used   features   in   Facebook   –   photo   tagging.   This   question   tested   youths’   understanding  of  how  Facebook’s  privacy  settings  work.       Youths  were  posed  the  following  question  in  their  online  survey:     “Your   friend   has   taken   photos   of   you   and   posted   them   in   his   Facebook   albums   which  he  has  set  to  private  (only  his  friends  are  able  to  view)  and  tagged  you.  Who   do  you  think  will  be  able  to  see  photos  of  you?  Select  as  many  as  apply.”     Youths   were   then   provided   a   list   of   options.   How   the   knowledge   challenge   worked   was   to   sieve   out   those   who   were   aware   of   Facebook’s   photo   tagging   privacy   settings.   Out   of   the   list   of   six   options,   only   four   are   correct,   based   on   130 Facebook’s  latest  privacy  safeguards  as  of  March  2010.  Only  youths  who  selected   all   four   of   the   options   were   correct,   any   youth   who   selected   more   or   less   than   the   four   correct   options   was   deemed   to   have   answered   the   question   incorrectly.   Out  of  the  258  youths,  150  passed  the  knowledge  challenge.       Comparing   the   percentage   of   youth   respondents   who   got   the   knowledge   challenge   correct   (58%)   to   the   percentage   of   youths   who   claimed   they   were   aware  of  Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards  for  photos  and  videos  (74%),  there  is  a   discrepancy  between  what  youths  claim  to  know  about  Facebook’s  information   privacy  safeguards  and  their  actual  knowledge  of  the  privacy  safeguards.       A  dissonance  between  what  youths  think  they  know  and  how  much  they  actually   know   about   Facebook’s   privacy   settings   may   result   in   them   being   lulled   into   a   false  sense  of  security.  They  may  reveal  more  personal  information  in  Facebook   without   fully   understanding   that   strangers   on   Facebook   have   access   to   their   personal  information.       7.4.2  Knowledge  versus  practice     Following   up   on   the   comparison   between   what   youths   claim   to   know   about   Facebook’s  privacy  safeguards  to  what  they  actually  know,  it  is  pertinent  to  not   only   understand   youths’   knowledge   of   Facebook’s   privacy   settings,   but   also   how   much  of  what  they  understand  is  translated  into  action.       131 With  two-­‐thirds  (67%)  of  the  youth  respondents  setting  their  Facebook  privacy   at   medium   and   high,   which   is   supported   by   the   content   analysis   findings   indicating  that  most  youths  have  private  profiles,  it  is  apparent  that  youths  are   aware   of   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards.   Youths   were   also   asked   about   their   level  of  awareness  of  the  privacy  settings  for  the  various  Facebook  subsections    –   About   Me   (IM   screen   name,   mobile   number,   address,   website);   Personal   Information   (interests,   activities,   favorites);   Birthday;   Religious   and   political   views;  Family  and  relationship;  Photos  and  videos;  Education  and  work.     Aware  of  the  following  privacy  protection  settings:   Number  of  youths   Percentage   (n=258)   youths   211   81.7%   “About  Me”:  Website,  Hometown/City   169   65.5%   “Personal  information”:  Interests,  activities,  favourites   169   65.5%   “Birthday”:  Date  of  birth   187   72.5%   Religious  and  political  views   152   58.9%   Family   and   relationship:   Family   members,   relationship   173   67%   Photos  and  videos   190   73.6%   Education  and  work   156   60.5%   “About   Me”:   IM   screen   name,   mobile   phone,   other   phone,   of   address   status   Table  7.21:  Percentage  of  youths  who  are  aware  of  the  various  Facebook  privacy  safeguards   From  Table  7.20,  all  the  Facebook  types  of  personal  information  had  more  than   50%   positive   response   rate   from   youths,   with   the   top   three   privacy   settings   that   youths  are  aware  of,  in  descending  order:  “About  Me  –  IM  screen  name,  mobile   number,   address”   (81.7%);   “Photos   and   videos”   (73.6%);   and   “Birthday”   (72.5%).         132 Utilize  following  privacy  protection  settings:   Number   of   (n=258)   “About   Me”:   IM   screen   name,   mobile   phone,   other   169   youths   Percentage   of   youths   65.5%   phone,  address   “About  Me”:  Website,  Hometown/City   “Personal   information”:   Interests,   97   37.6%   activities,   97   37.6%   favourites   “Birthday”:  Date  of  birth   114   44.2%   Religious  and  political  views   72   27.9%   Family   and   relationship:   Family   members,   106   41.1%   Photos  and  videos   148   57.4%   Education  and  work   93   36.0%   relationship  status   Table  7.22:  Percentage  of  youths  who  utilize  the  various  Facebook  privacy  safeguards     From  Table  7.22,  two  types  of  personal  information  obtained  a  greater  than  50%   positive   response   rate.     The   top   three   types   of   personal   information   which   Singaporean   Facebook   users   activate   privacy   settings   for   are:   “About   Me   –   IM   screen   name,   mobile   number,   address”   (65.5%);   “Photos   and   videos”   (57.4%)   and   “Birthday”   (44.2%).   Based   on   Tables   7.20   and   7.21,   the   top   three   types   of   personal   information   for   awareness   are   also   the   top   three   types   of   personal   information  which  youths  utilize  privacy  safeguards.       This   set   of   findings   is   backed   up   with   the   results   of   the   content   analysis   of   the   Facebook   profiles   conducted   prior   to   the   surveys.   For   the   youths’   private   profiles  on  Facebook,  none  publicly  displayed  IM  screen  names,  mobile  numbers   or  address  as  well  as  photos  and  videos.     133 When   comparing   Tables   7.19   and   7.20,   it   was   noted   that   only   “About   Me   –   IM   screen   name,   mobile   number,   address”   and   “Photos   and   videos”   achieved   a   greater   than   50%   positive   response   for   both   tables.   From   this,   it   can   be   deduced   that   youths   deem   personal   information   like   mobile   numbers,   residential   addresses,   IM   usernames   and   their   photos   and   videos   as   personal   information   that   are   more   private   than   education   and   work.   The   percentage   of   youths   who   utilize   privacy   protection   settings   for   photos   and   videos   was   the   same   as   the   number   of   youths   who   answered   the   knowledge   challenge   correctly   –   58%,   which  can  be  used  to  support  the  reliability  of  the  knowledge  challenge.     Therefore,   it   can   be   concluded   that   the   types   of   personal   information   youths   consider  most  private  –  mobile  numbers,  home  addresses  and  numbers,  photos   and  videos  are  unique  and  have  identifiers  imbued  in  them.  Mobile  numbers  and   addresses   are   information   unique   to   the   individual;   photos   and   videos   identify   and  single  out  an  individual  from  the  group.  Other  types  of  personal  information   such   as   IM   and   Twitter   usernames   offer   some   form   of   anonymity,   “Interests,   activities   and   favourites”,   “Religious   and   political   views”   as   well   as   “Education   and   Work”   allows   youths   to   blend   into   a   group   identity;   thus,   revealing   one’s   secondary  school  is  deemed  less  of  a  privacy  risk  as  compared  to  revealing  one’s   residential  address  or  mobile  number  publicly  on  Facebook.     Finally,  the  results  from  comparing  the  level  of  awareness  and  level  of  utility  of   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards   also   confirm   the   presence   of   a   perception   gap,   134 where   youths   think   they   understand   the   workings   Facebook’s   privacy   settings   when  they  actually  do  not.       7.5  Contribution  of  study  to  current  literature   7.5.1  Negotiation  and  management  of  identity  in  Facebook   From  current  SNS  literature,  boyd  (2008)  concluded  that  youths  believe  that  SNS   should   be   their   private   space   online   while   most   parents   disagree   with   this,   as   they   believe   that   nothing   posted   online   is   private.   Findings   from   my   study   support  the  parents’  perspective.  From  my  online  surveys,  Singaporean  parents   are   generally   Privacy   Fundamentalists   who   are   privacy-­‐oriented   and   are   distrustful   of   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards.   From   the   surveys,   most   youths’   Facebook  profiles  are  set  to  private,  lending  credence  to  boyd’s  conclusion.       7.5.2  Parental  concerns  and  Facebook   As   the   online   surveys   were   targeted   at   both   parents   and   youths,   I   managed   to   glean   information   on   the   privacy   perceptions   from   both   demographics   and   obtained  a  more  holistic  understanding  of  parental  concerns  vis  a  vis  Facebook.     My   findings   support   Buckingham’s   study   in   2008,   that   parents   tend   to   lean   towards   the   critical   view   of   digital   technology   but   are   also   aware   of   the   permanence   of   technology   and   it   is   to   their   children’s   benefit   to   be   familiar   with   the   technology.   Singaporean   parents   are   concerned   about   their   youths’   safety   online,  but  also  believe  that  Facebook  is  beneficial  to  their  youths’  development.     Singaporean  parents  are  keen  to  improve  their  children’s  educational  prospects   via  SNS,  but  are  also  concerned  about  online  dangers,  which  reasonates  with  the   135 conclusions  drawn  by  Turow  and  Nir  (2000),  Livingstone  (2002),  and  (2003).  I   found  that  Singaporean  parents  are  wary  of  online  privacy  but  believe  that  SNS   is   becoming   a   mainstay   in   the   lives   of   their   teenage   children.   My   findings   corroborate  with  the  research  of  Turow  and  Nir  (2000),  Livingstone  and  Bovill   (2001),   Buckingham   (2002),   that   parents   believe   SNS   can   help   in   their   youths’   development;  helping  them  do  better  in  school  and  learn  useful  knowledge.     Amidst   Singaporean   parents’   general   optimism   with   regard   to   Facebook,   they   share   the   same   concerns   as   other   parents   about   Facebook   displacing   more   worthwhile   activities.   Previous   studies   by   Punamaki   and   et.   al.(2006)   and   Kim   and   et.   al.(2009),   concur   with   my   findings   that   Singaporean   parents   main   concerns  about  their  teenage  children  SNS  usage,  is  not  limited  to  online  safety.   Parents  are  more  concerned  about  how  their  teenage  children  are  spending  too   much   time   on   Facebook   and   neglecting   their   schoolwork,   other   offline   activities,   their  health  and  sleep.     From  previous  studies  by  Livingstone  and  Bober  (2006),  parents,  underestimate   the   risks   their   youths   are   experiencing   online.   Parental   anxieties   tend   towards   being  ill-­‐informed  and  ineffective  in  supporting  regulation.  To  some  extent,  this   is  true  –  my  findings  indicate  that  parents  are  unaware  that  youths  are  posting   information  such  as  residential  areas  and  mobile  numbers  in  Facebook.  This  may   lead   to   Singaporean   parents   underestimating   the   risks   their   children   are   experiencing  online.  A  possible  reason  for  this  suggested  by  Finkelhor,  Mitchell   136 and  Wolak  (2000)  and  Cameron  and  et.  al.(2005)  might  be  because  parents  are   unaware   of   what   their   children   view   online.   While   this   may   be   true   to   some   extent,  I  note  that  Singaporean  parents  take  a  pro-­‐active  stance  in  understanding   the  activities  that  youths  are  engaging  in  Facebook.       A  study  by  Fleming,  et.  al,  (2006)  revealed  that  youths  aged  13-­‐14  whose  parents   did  not  discuss  Internet  safety  with  them  are  less  conscious  about  safety  online,   which   may   lead   to   them   posting   personal   information   without   knowledge   of   the   possible   repercussions.   From   my   findings,   Singaporean   parents   discuss   online   safety   with   their   youths,   which   may   explain   for   Singaporean   youths   being   privacy-­‐oriented   as   well.   The   discussions   are   two-­‐way,   as   Singaporean   parents   cite   conversations   with   their   youths   as   their   main   source   of   information   for   online  safety.     Lastly,   my   findings   resonate   with   the   discussions   of   scholars   like   Williams   (2000)  and  Berson  and  Berson  (2003,  2005),  where  parents  are  urging  schools   to  take  up  a  more  prominent  role  in  educating  and  guiding  youths  about  online   safety.       7.5.3  Policy  and  Facebook   My   findings   agree   with   literature   from   Sithigh   (2008)   that   some   youths   do   not   read  Facebook’s  privacy  policy.    This  is  a  preamble  to  discussions  by  Livingstone   and  Bober  (2006)  on  allocating  responsibility  for  overseeing  youths  online;  not   only  how  to  apportion  such  responsibilities,  but  also  how  to  ensure  coordination   137 across   them.   Within   this,   a   key   point   of   contestation   is   how   far   to   devolve   responsibility   from   the   state   to   the   industry   (via   self   regulation)   or   to   the   individual  citizen  (mainly  parents).       To   address   this   issue   of   allocating   responsibilities   adequately,   a   realistic   understanding   of   youths   is   required   to   avoid   assuming   a   wholly   positive   view   of   their   critical   intelligence   and   social   responsibility.   From   my   findings,   while   most   youths   are   Privacy   Fundamentalists   or   Privacy   Pragmatists,   they   are   also   willing   to  compromise  their  online  privacy  by  posting  personal  information  in  Facebook   although   they   do   not   wholly   trust   Facebook.   However,   they   mitigate   the   risks   online   by   not   revealing   private   personal   information   like   their   residential   address.   The   personal   information   disclosure   behaviors   displayed   by   youths   concur   with   boyd’s   (2008)   suggestion   that   this   is   feeling   of   being   exposed   the   price  that  we  have  to  pay  to  enjoy  social  convergence.     Holloway   and   Valentine   (2003)   discussed   how   the   anxieties   of   some   parents   about   what   their   children   may   do   or   encounter   online   are   exacerbated   by   the   parents’   own   lack   of   ICT   skills.   Also,   there   may   be   some   dissonance   present   between   youths’   perceived   danger   online   and   their   parents’,   caregivers’   and   educators’  perspectives  (Herring,  2008).       This  suggests  that  while  looking  at  the  responses  of  the  majority,  the  perceptions   of   the   minority   may   also   warrant   a   closer   inspection.   From   my   findings,   this   138 concern  is  valid  –  most  of  my  parent  respondents  are  white-­‐collar  workers  and   professionals.   Therefore   my   findings   for   parents,   aside   for   its   lower   than   expected   response   rate,   cannot   be   taken   to   represent   the   perspectives   of   blue-­‐ collar  workers,  because  parents  as  a  demographic  group  is  not  homogenous.  The   heterogeneous   mix   for   parents,   educators   and   the   government   will   have   implications  for  the  crafting  of  relevant  and  inclusive  policies  and  campaigns.       Chapter  8:  Conclusion     This   chapter   concludes   the   study   by   discussing   its   limitations   as   well   as   implications   on   policymaking.   Proposals   and   suggestions   for   future   studies   shall   also  be  addressed.       8.1  Summary  of  findings     It   should   be   mentioned   from   the   onset   that   the   results   for   this   study   lack   representativeness  due  to  the  constraints  faced  during  data  collection.  However,   for   an   exploratory   study,   the   results   do   make   a   contribution   in   making   a   headstart   with   the   aim   of   facilitating   a   better   understanding   of   the   privacy   perceptions  and  attitudes  of  Singaporean  youths  and  their  parents.       From  the  content  analysis  and  online  surveys  conducted,  it  may  be  surmised  that   Singaporean   youths   are   generally   privacy-­‐oriented,   are   aware   of   and   utilize   Facebook’s   privacy   settings.   They   also   have   their   creative   methods   of   masking   their  personal  information  online.  However,  they  are  willing  to  disclose  personal   information  in  Facebook  although  they  do  not  trust  Facebook.  They  manage  the   risk   of   personal   information   disclosure   by   not   revealing   their   offline   contact   139 information   publicly.   It   is   observed   that   there   is   a   privacy   continuum   with   respect   to   the   types   of   personal   information   revealed.   The   more   sensitive   and   private  personal  information  such  as  residential  addresses  and  mobile  numbers   are   less   likely   to   be   revealed   by   youths   in   their   Facebook   profiles.   From   the   above,  we  can  see  that  Singaporean  youths  manage  privacy  better  than  what  has   been  reported  in  the  media.     Singaporean   parents   are   generally   privacy-­‐oriented   as   well.   They   are   also   aware   of   the   personal   information   their   youths   reveal   in   Facebook   and   proactively   engage   them   in   conversations   about   online   safety.   They   display   trust   in   their   youths’  judgment  on  personal  information  disclosure,  sometimes  too  much  trust,   as  evinced  from  how  they  think  that  their  youths  do  not  reveal  mobile  numbers   in  Facebook.  They  are  aware  of  the  positive  impacts  of  SNS  and  try  to  achieve  a   balance  between  caution  and  optimism  about  SNS.       The   principal   concern   of   parents   relates   to   their   perception   that   Facebook   is   a   time-­‐sink,  rather  than  the  Internet  being  a  threat  to  their  youths’  personal  safety.   This   perception   echoes   parental   concern   over   television   consumption,   video   games  and  other  mediatized  forms  of  youths  passing  time.     Also,   while   parents   and   youths   have   similar   privacy   values,   youths   are   more   likely   to   compromise   on   their   privacy   values   to   gain   recognition   and   understanding  from  their  peers.     140   Overall,   the   results   of   the   study   indicate   that   the   fears   surrounding   the   loss   of   privacy   and   online   predation   in   Facebook   may   be   exaggerated,   at   least   for   the   sample  that  was  under  study.  Although  there  are  limits  in  terms  of  generalizing   these   results,   further   studies   can   be   conducted   to   improve   the   validity   and   generalizability  of  this  study.   8.2  Limitations  of  study   Limitations   of   this   study   include   the   sampling   method   for   content   analysis   and   the  lack  of  representativeness  for  parent  respondents.       The   sampling   method   for   content   analysis,   while   steps   were   taken   to   try   to   ensure  validity,  may  not  be  encompassing  enough  as  only  youths  who  displayed   their   school   networks   were   selected   for   the   content   analysis.   This   was   to   ensure   that   the   Facebook   profiles   selected   belonged   to   secondary   school   students.   Youths  in  Facebook  who  did  not  display  their  school  networks  were  not  selected,   thus  this  might  affect  results  of  the  content  analysis.  I  mitigated  the  effects  of  the   sampling   method   by   ensuring   representativeness   in   the   Facebook   profiles   selected.     Parent   respondents   were   mainly   from   white-­‐collared   professions,   affecting   the   generalizability   of   the   results.   Parents   from   other   professions   might   possess   different   online   privacy   perceptions   and   IT   skills   and   this   would   have   repercussions   on   how   they   guide   their   teenage   children   in   SNS.   However,   as   141 privacy  is  an  elastic  concept,  there  is  no  single  best  method  for  guiding  youths  on   online   privacy.   Technical   knowledge   can   be   picked   up   from   parent-­‐youths   discussions   about   Facebook,   where   youths   can   explain   the   workings   of   the   technology  to  parents.  Having  open  channels  of  communication  is  thus  the  most   important   element   when   parents   guide   their   youths   on   online   privacy   and   personal  information  disclosure.   8.3  Implications  of  study  on  policy-­making   The   idea   of   responsibility   is   of   interest   to   policymakers:   not   only   how   to   apportion   such   responsibilities,   but   also   how   to   ensure   coordination   across   them.   A   key   point   of   contestation   is   how   far   to   devolve   responsibility   from   the   state   to   the   industry   (via   self   regulation)   or   to   the   individual   citizen   (mainly   parents)   (Livingstone   &   Bober,   2006).   To   answer   this,   the   current   situation   is   assessed   from   my   findings   before   determining   if   a   light   touch   is   enough   or   if   greater  enforcement  and  policing  is  required.       For  policy  makers,  the  knowledge  gleaned  from  this  study  can  aid  in  formulating   future   policies   and   campaigns.   My   findings   indicate   how   students   utilizing   Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards   understand   its   nuances   better   than   students   who   are   aware   but   who   do   not   utilize   the   privacy   safeguards.   Hence,   encouraging   youths  to  try  out  the  various  levels  of  privacy  safeguards  in  a  hands-­‐on  fashion   can   be   adopted   to   complement   existing   school   talks   and   symposiums   as   awareness  do  not  always  translate  into  action  for  youths.     142 While   my   results   that   agree   with   Livingstone   and   Bober’s   2006   study   that   youths’   enthusiasm   for   SNS   is   resulting   in   some   risky   behaviors   such   as   revealing   offline   contact   information   to   strangers,   such   incidences   are   far   and   between  for  Singaporean  youths.  My  findings  indicate  that  currently,  parents  are   aware  of  the  risks  their  youths  face  online  and  are  discussing  with  their  youths   to  rein  their  enthusiasm  and  use  SNS  responsibly.       As  my  findings  indicate  that  most  Singaporean  youths  are  aware  of  Facebook’s   privacy   safeguards,   perhaps   the   next   level   that   parents   and   educators   can   engage  with  them  during  online  safety  discussions  is  to  share  how  youths  should   be   discriminating   when   it   comes   to   adding   friends   on   Facebook;   especially   since   some   youths   disclose   personal   information   such   as   mobile   numbers   in   their   profiles.   Youths   need   learn   to   be   either   more   discriminating   when   it   comes   to   approving   friends   on   Facebook,   or   to   begin   segmenting   their   friends   into   lists   and  assigning  different  levels  of  access  to  different  lists  of  friends  in  Facebook.     The   current   light   touch   approach   by   parents   and   educators   when   it   comes   to   youths’   personal   information   disclosure   in   Facebook   seems   to   suffice   for   now.   However,  policymakers  should  take  note  of  the  infrequent  but  significant  cases   when  a  dual  or  ambivalent  perspective  is  recorded,  such  as  youths  not  trusting   Facebook   completely   but   persist   in   revealing   their   personal   information   in   Facebook.   This   suggests   that   youths   also   struggle   to   reconcile   the   concerns   raised  in  mainstream  media  discourses  accessible  to  themselves  as  well  as  their   143 parents,   caregivers   and   teachers,   with   their   own   and   their   friends’   experiences   with  the  Internet.     Therefore,  even  though  Singaporean  youths  are  privacy-­‐oriented,  there  has  to  be   reinforcement   by   various   parties   –   parents,   educators,   and   policymakers,   even   peers,  to  ensure  a  safe  and  conducive  SNS  environment.     8.4  Suggestions  for  future  research   The   recent   media   coverage   on   the   lapses   in   Facebook’s   privacy   settings   has   shown   how   the   issue   of   privacy   in   SNS   is   gaining   salience.   As   Facebook’s   popularity  grows  and  users  disclose  their  personal  information  on  the  SNS,  the   impact   of   media   discourse   on   Facebook   users’   level   of   awareness   for   personal   information  disclosure  can  be  an  area  of  academic  interest.       For   the   field   of   online   privacy   and   personal   information   disclosure,   future   research   can   go   beyond   examining   technical   privacy   safeguards,   after   ascertaining   that   the   technical   privacy   safeguards   have   been   utilized   to   look   at   the   influence   of   social   capital   on   privacy.   Currently,   the   trend   in   Facebook   is   social  gaming,  where  users  are  adding  strangers  in  Facebook  to  enlist  their  aid  in   completing  tasks  to  progress  in  the  games.  These  popular  activities  in  Facebook   and   how   they   affect   the   level   and   nature   of   personal   information   disclosure   in   SNS  demonstrate  how  privacy  and  social  capital  are  related.     144 In  conclusion,  even  as  SNS  become  a  mainstay  in  the  lives  of  digital  natives,  it  is   still   evolving   as   a   phenomenon.   This   creates   challenges   for   communication   scholars   who   have   to   keep   abreast   of   the   latest   developments.   At   the   same   time,   the   plethora   of   information   available   about   SNS   encourages   discussion   and   is   conducive   to   the   creation   of   valuable   insights,   as   well   as   vibrant   and   engaging   dialogues  between  the  industry,  users  and  academics.   (29  330words)                                             145 Bibliography   Abrahamson,  M.  (2003).  Social  research  methods.  Englewood  Cliffs,  NJ:  Prentice  Hall.     Abril,  P.S.  (2007).  A  (My)  Space  of  one's  own:  On  privacy  and  online  social  networks.   Northwestern  School  of  Law  Journal  of  Technology  and  Intellectual  Property,  73.   Retrieved  from:  http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v6/n1/4     Agger,  Ben.  2004.  The  Virtual  Self:  A  contemporary  Sociology.  New  York:Blackwell   Publishers.     Ahn,  Y.,  Han,  S.,  Kwak,  H.,  Moon,  S.,  &  Jeong,  H.  (2007).  Analysis  of  topological   characteristics  of  huge  online  social  networking  services.  In  Proceedings  of  the   16th  international  Conference  on  World  Wide  Web  (Banff,  Alberta,  Canada,  May  08  -­   12,  2007).  WWW  '07.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  835-­‐844.     Altman,  I.  (1975).  The  environment  and  social  behavior.  Monterey,  CA:  Brooks/Cole.     Altman,  I.,  &  Taylor,  D.,  (1973).  Social  Penetration:  The  Development  of  Interpersonal   Relationships.  NewYork:  Holt,  Rinehart  and  Winston.     Altman,  C.,  Barnes,  R.,  &  Leudar,  I.  (2005).  Self-­‐disclosure  as  a  situated  interactional   practice.  British  journal  of  Social  Psychology,  44,  181-­‐200.     Anderson,  B.  (1983).  Imagined  Communities:  Reflections  on  the  Origin  and  Spread  of   Nationalism.  Verso,  London  and  New  York.       Anderson,  T  L.,  &  Emmers-­‐Sommer,  T.  M.  (2006).  Predictors  of  romantic  satisfaction  in   online  romantic  relationships.  Communication  Studies,  57,  153-­‐172.     Andrejevic,  M.  (2005).  The  work  of  watching  one  another:  lateral  surveillance,  risk,   governance.  Surveillance  and  Society,  2(4)-­‐479-­‐497.     Arjan,  R.,  Pfeil,  U.,  &  Zaphiris,  P..  (2008).  Age  differences  in  online  social  networking.  CHI   2008,  April  5  –  April  10,  2008,  Florence,  Italy,  ACM.       Babbie,  E.  (2001).  The  practice  of  social  research.  (9th  ed.).  Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.       Babbie,  E.  (2002).  The  basics  of  social  research.  (2nd  ed.).  Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.       Backstrom,  L.,  Huttenlocher,  D.,  Kleinberg,  J.,  &  Lan,  X.  (2006).  Group  formation  in  large   social  networks:  membership,  growth,  and  evolution.  In  Proceedings  of  the  12th   ACM  SIGKDD  international  Conference  on  Knowledge  Discovery  and  Data  Mining   (Philadelphia,  PA,  USA,  August  20  -­  23,  2006).  KDD  '06.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  44-­‐54.     Bargh,  J.  A.,  McKenna,  K.Y.A.,  &  Fitzsimons,  G.M.  (2002).  Can  you  see  the  real  me?   Activation  and  expression  of  the  true  self  on  the  Internet.  Journal  of  Social  Issues,   58,  33-­‐48.     146 Barnes,  S.  B.  (2006).  A  privacy  paradox:  Social  networking  in  the  United  States.  First   Monday,  (11)9.         Barton,  Z.  (2006).  Facebook  goes  corporate,  CNET.     Baym,  N.  (2002).  Interpersonal  life  online.  In  L.  Lievrouw  &  S.  Livingstone  (Eds.),  The   handbook  of  new  media  (pp.  62-­‐76).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage.     Beer,  D.  (2008).  Making  friends  with  Jarvis  Cocker:  music  culture  in  the  context  of  Web   2.0.  Cultural  Sociology,  2,  222-­‐241.     Ben-­‐Ze’ev,  A.  (2003).  Privacy,  emotional  closeness  and  openness  in  cyberspace.   Computers  in  Human  Behavior,  19,  451-­‐467.     Berelson,  B.  (1952).  Content  analysis  in  communications  research.  Glencoe,  IL:  Free   Press.     Berendt,  B.,  Gunther,  O.,  &  Spiekermann,  S.  (2005).  Privacy  in  e-­‐commerce:  Stated   preferences  vs.  actual  behavior.  Communications  of  the  ACM,  48(4),  101-­‐106.     Berg,  B.  L.  (2001).  Qualitative  research  methods  for  the  social  sciences.  Boston:  Allyn  and   Bacon.     Berg,  B.L.  (2004)  Qualitative  research  methods  for  the  social  sciences.  Boston:  Pearson.     Berson,  M.J.  &  Berson,  I.R.  (2003).  Lessons  learned  about  schools  and  their   responsibility  to  foster  safety  online.  Journal  of  School  Violence,  2(1),  105-­‐117.     Berson,  I.  R.,  &  Berson,  M.J.  (2005).  Challenging  online  behaviors  of  youths:  Findings   from  a  comparative  analysis  of  young  people  in  the  United  States  and  New   Zealand.  Social  Science  Computer  Review,  23(1),  29-­‐38.     boyd,  d.  (2004)  Friendster  and  Publicly  Articulated  Social  Networks.  Presented  during   Conference  on  Human  Factors  and  Computing  Systems  (CHI  2004).  Vienna:  ACM.     boyd,  d  (2006).Friends,  Friendsters,  and  MySpace  top  8:  writing  community  into  being   on  social  network  sites.  First  Monday.  11(12).     boyd,  d.  &  Heer,  J.  (2006).  Profiles  as  Conversation:  Networked  Identity  Performance  on   Friendster.  In  Proceedings  of  the  Hawai'i  International  Conference  on  System   Sciences  (HICSS-­39),  Persistent  Conversation  Track.  Kauai,  HI:  IEEE  Computer   Society.     boyd,  d.  m.,  &  Ellison,  N.  B.  (2007).  Social  network  sites:  Definition,  History,  and   Scholarship.  Journal  of  Computer  Mediated  Communication,  13(1),  210-­‐230.     boyd,  d.  (2008).  Facebook’s  privacy  trainwreck:  Exposure,  invasion  and  social   convergence.  Convergence  14,  1.     147 boyd,  d.  (2008).  Why  youth  (heart)  social  network  sites:    The  role  of  networked  publics   in  teenage  social  life.  In  Buckingham,  D.  (Ed),  Youth,  Identity,  and  Digital  Media.   (pp.  119-­‐142).  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press.       Booth,  P.  (2008).  Rereading  Fandom:  MySpace  Character  Personas  and  Narrative   Identification.  Critical  Studies  in  Media  Communication,  25:5,  514-­‐536.     Bourdieu,  P.  (1993).  Sociology  in  Question.  London  :  Sage.     Bradford.  (2008).  MySpace  or  yours?  :  Advertising  and  social  networks.  Strategic   Direction.  24(8),  15.     Bryne,  D.N..  (2008).  The  Future  of  (the)  ’Race’:  Identity,  Discourse,  and  the  Rise  of   Computer-­‐mediated  Public  Spheres.  Learning  Race  and  Ethnicity:  Youth  and   Digital  Media.  Edited  by  Anna  Everett.  The  John  D.  and  Catherine  T.  MacArthur   Foundation  Series  on  Digital  Media  and  Learning.  Cambridge,  MA:  The  MIT  Press,   2008.  15–38.     Buchanan,  T.,  Paine,  C.,  Joinson,  A.,  &  Reips,  U.-­‐D.  (2007).  Development  of  measures  of   online  privacy  concern  and  protection  for  use  on  the  Internet.  Journal  of  the   American  Society  for  Information  Science  and  Technology,  58(2),  157–165.     Buckingham,  D.  (2002).  The  electronic  generation?  Children  and  new  media.  In  L.   Lievrouw  &  S.  Livingstone  (Eds.),  The  Handbook  of  New  Media:  Social  shaping  and   consequences  of  ICTs  (pp.  77-­‐89).  London:  Sage.     Buckingham,  D.  (2005).  Children  and  new  media.  In  L.  Lieverow  &  S.  Livingstone  (Eds)   Handbook  of  New  Media.  London:  Sage.     Buckingham,  D.  (Ed.).  (2008).  Youth,  Identity  and  Digital  Media.  Edited  by  The  John  D.   and  Catherine  T.  MacArthur  Foundation  series  on  Digital  Media  and  Learning.   Cambrige,  MA.  The  MIT  Press,  2008.     Buckingham,  D.,  &  Sefton-­‐Green,  J.  (1994).  Cultural  studies  goes  to  school.  London:   Taylor  &  Francis.     Buckingham,  D.,  &  Willett,  R..  (Eds).  (2006).  Digital  Generations:  children,  young  people   and  new  media.  Mahwah,  N.J.:Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates,  Publishers.     Buffardi,  L.E.,  Campbell,  W.K.  (2008).  Narcissism  and  Social  Networking  Web  Sites.  Pers   Soc  Psychology  Bulletin,  34,  1303-­‐1314.     Bulmer  M.  (Ed.)  (1982)  Social  Research  Ethics.  Macmillan,  London.     Burgoon,  J.  K.,  Newton,  D.  A.,  Walther,  J.  B.,  &  Baesler,  E.  J.  (1989).  Nonverbal  expectancy   violations  and  conversational  involvement.  Journal  of  Nonverbal  Behavior,  13,  97-­‐ 119.     Cain,  J.  (2007).  Online  social  networking  issues  within  academia  and  pharmacy   education.  American  Journal  of  Pharmaceutical  Education  2008,  72  (1),  Article  10.   148   Cameron,  K.  A.,  Salazar,  L.F.,  Bernhardt,  J.M.,  Burgess-­‐Whitman,  N.,  Wingood,  G.M.,  &   DiClemente,  R.  J.  (2005).  Adolescents’  experience  with  sex  on  the  web:  results   from  online  focus  groups.  Journal  of  Adolescence,  535-­‐540.     Campbell,  D.T.  (1956),  Leadership  and  its  effects  upon  the  group.  Ohio  State  University,   Columbus.     Campbell,  D.T.  and  Fiske,  D.  (1959).  Convergent  and  discriminant  validation  by  the   multitrait-­‐multimethod  matrix.  Psychological  Bulletin,  56,  81-­‐104.       Carney,  T.  F.  (1972).  Content  analysis.  Winnipeg:  University  of  Manitoba  Press.     Carroll,  J.  M.,  &  Rosson,  M.  B.  (2003).  A  trajectory  for  community  networks.  The   Information  Society,  19,  381  -­‐393.     Carter,  D.  (2005).  Living  in  virtual  communities.  Irviormatian,  Communication,  &  Society,   8,  148-­‐167.     Cassidy,  J.  (2006).  Me  media:  How  hanging  out  on  the  Internet  became  big  business.  New   Yorker  (15  May).  Retrieved  from:   http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/15/060515fa_fact_cassidy     Chapman  C.N.,  &  LaHav,  M..  (2008).  International  ethnographic  observation  of  social   networking  sites.  CHI  2008,  April  5–10,  2008,  Florence,  Italy,  ACM.       Cheney,  S.  (January  2008).  Social  networking  sites  may  impact  how  traditional  businesses   work.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/323756/1 /.html     Choi,  J.H.  (2006).  Living  in  Cyworld:  contextualizing  cy-­‐ties  in  South  Korea.  Use  of  Blogs.   Pp  173-­‐186.     Christ,  R.E,    Berges,  J.S,  Trevino,  S.C.  (2007).  Social  Networking  Sites:  to  monitor  or  not   to  monitor  users  and  their  content?  Intellectual  Property  &  Technology  Law   Journal,  19(7),  13-­‐17.  Retrieved  March  21,  2009,  from  ABI/INFORM  Global   database.     Christofides,  E.,  Muise,  A.,  &  Desmarais,  S.  (2009).  Information  control  on  Facebook:  Are   they  two  sides  of  the  same  coin  or  two  different  process?  CyberPsychology  &   Behavior,  12(3):  341-­‐345.     Christian,  L.M.,  Dillman,  D.A.,  &  Smyth,  J.D.  (Forthcoming).  The  effects  of  mode  and   format  on  answers  to  scalar  questions  in  telephone  and  web  surveys.  Advances  in   telephone  survey  methodology.  New  York:  Wiley-­‐Interscience.       Chu,  M.,  &  Meulemans,  Y.  N.  (2008).  The  problems  and  potential  of  MySpace  and   Facebook  usage  in  academic  libraries,  Internet  Reference  Services  Quarterly,  13(1),   69-­‐85.   149   Chun,  H.,  Kwak,  H.,  Eom,  Y.,  Ahn,  Y.,  Moon,  S.,  &  Jeong,  H.  (2008).  Comparison  of  online   social  relations  in  volume  vs  interaction:  a  case  study  of  cyworld.  In  Proceedings  of   the  8th  ACM  SIGCOMM  Conference  on  internet  Measurement  (Vouliagmeni,  Greece,   October  20  -­  22,  2008).  IMC  '08.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  57-­‐70.     Couper,  M.P.,  Traugott,  M.W.,  &  Lamias,  M.J.  (2001).  Web  design  survey  and   administration.  Public  Opinion  Quarterly,  65,  230-­‐254.     Creswell,  J.W.  (2003).  Research  design:  Qualitative,  quantitative,  and  mixed  methods   approaches.  2nd  edition,  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:Sage.     Crocker,  J.,  Major,  B.,  &  Steele,  C.  (1998).  Social  Stigma.  In  D.  T.    Gilbert,  S.T    Fiske,  and  G.   Lindzey  (Eds)  The  handbook  of  social  psychology  (4th  Ed.,  Vol  2,  pp  504-­‐553).   Boston:  McGraw-­‐Hill.     Das,  G.,  Koudas,  N.,  Papagelis,  M.,  &  Puttaswamy,  S.  (2008).  Efficient  sampling  of   information  in  social  networks.  In  Proceeding  of  the  2008  ACM  Workshop  on   Search  in  Social  Media  (Napa  Valley,  California,  USA,  October  30  -­  30,  2008).  SSM   '08.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  67-­‐74.     David,  M.,  &  Sutton,  C.D.  (2004)  Social  research:  the  basics.  London:  Sage.     Davidson,  J.,  &  Matellozzo,  E.  (2008).  Protecting  vulnerable  youth  people  in  cyberspace   from  sexual  abuse:  raising  awareness  and  responding  globally.  Police  Practice  and   Research,  9(4),  277-­‐289.     De  Souza,  Z.,  &  Dick,  G.  N..  (2008).  Information  disclosure  on  MySpace  -­‐  the  what,  the   why  and  the  Implications.  Pastoral  Care  in  Education,  26(3),143  —  157.       De  Souza,  Z,  &  Dick,  G,  N.  (2009).  Disclosure  of  information  by  children  in  social   networking  –  Not  just  a  case  of  “you  show  me  yours  and  I’ll  show  you  mine”.   International  Journal  of  Information  Management,  (29)4:255-­‐261.     Denzin,  N.  (1971)  The  research  act  in  sociology.  London:  Butterworth.     DiMicco,  J.M  &  Millen,  D.R.  (2007).  Identity  management:  multiple  presentations  of  self   in  Facebook.  Conference  on  Supporting  Group  Work.,  ACM  Press,  383-­‐386.     Donath,  J.,  &  boyd,  d.  (2004).  Public  displays  of  connection.  BT  Technology  Journal,  2:4,   71-­‐82.     Downes,  S.  (2005).    Semantic  networks  and  social  networks.  The  Learning  Organization,   12(5):411-­‐417.     Dwyer,  C.,  Hiltz,  S.R.,  &  Passerini,  K.  (2007).  Trust  and  privacy  concern  within  social   networking  sites:  A  comparison  of  Facebook  and  MySpace.  Proceedings  of  AMCIS   2007.     150 Edmunds,  J.  &  Turner,  B.S.  2002.  Generations,  Culture  and  Society.  Buckingham  and   Philadelphia:  Open  University  Press.     Ellison,  N.,  Steinfield,  C.  &  Lample,  C.  (2006).  The  benefits  of  Facebook  friends.  Social   capital  and  college  students’  use  of  online  social  network  sits.  Journal  of  Computer   Mediated  Communication,  12  (4).  Article  1.     Ellison,  N.,  Heino,  R.,  &  Gibbs,  J.  (2006).  Managing  impressions  online:  Self-­‐presentation   processes  in  the  online  dating  environment.  Journal  of  Computer-­Mediated   Communication,  11(2).     Ellison,  N.,  Steinfield,  C.,  &  Lampe,  C.  (2006).  Spatially  bounded  online  social  networks   and  social  capital:  The  role  of  Facebook.  Presented  at  International  Communication   Association,  June  2006.     Enders,  A.,  Hungenberg,  H.,  Denker,  H-­‐P.,  Mauch,  S.  (2008).  The  long  tail  of  social   networking.  Revenue  models  of  social  networking  sites.  European  Management   Journal.  26(3),  199.     Evans,  D.C.,  Gosling,  S.D.,  &  Carroll,  A..  (2008).  What  elements  of  an  online  social   networking  profile  predict  target-­‐rater  agreement  in  personality  impressions?   ICWSM’08,  March  31  -­  April  2,  2008,  Seattle,  Washington,  USA.     Esterberg,  K.G.  (2002).  Qualitative  methods  in  social  science  research.  Boston:  McGraw   Hill.     Felt,  A.,  &  Evans,  D.  (2008).  Privacy  protection  for  social  networking  APIs.  W2SP,  May   2008.     Fielding,  N  &  Fielding,  J.  (1986)  Linking  Data:  the  articulation  of  qualitative  and   quantitative  methods  in  social  research.  London  and  Beverly  Hills:  Sage  .     Finhelhor,  D.,  Mitchell,  K.J.,  &  Wolak,  J.  (2000).  Online  victimization:  A  report  on  Nation’s   youth.  NCJRS.         Fleming,  M.J.,  Greentree,  S.,  Cocotti-­‐Muller.,  Elias,  K.  A.,  &  Morrison,  S.  (2006).  Safety  in   cyberspace:  Adolescents’  safety  and  exposure  online.  Youth  and  Society,  38(2),   135-­‐154.     Fogel,  J.,  &  Nehmad,  E.  (2009).  Internet  social  network  communities:  Risk  taking,  trust,   and  privacy  concerns.  Computers  in  Human  Behavior,  25,  153-­‐160.     Fono,  D.,  &  Raynes-­‐Goldie,  K.  (2006).  Hyperfriends  and  Beyond:  Friendship  and  Social   Norms  on  LiveJournal.”(2006).  M.  Consalvo  &  C.  Haythornthwaite  (Eds.),  Internet   Research  Annual  Volume  4:  Selected  Papers  from  the  Association  of  Internet   Researchers  Conference.  New  York:  Peter  Lang.     Forno,  D.,  &  Raynes-­‐Goldie,  K.  (2006).  Hyperfriends  and  beyond:  Friendship  and  social   norms  on  Livejournal.  Internet  Research  Annual  Volume  4.  New  York:  Peter  Lang.   151 Freeman,  R.  E.  (2000).  Children,  teens,  and  sex  on  the  Internet.  Sexual  Addiction  and   Compulsivity,  7(1),  75-­‐90.     Gandy,  O.H.  (1993).  The  panoptic  sort:  A  political  economy  of  personal  information.   Boulder,  Colo.:  Westview.      Garton,  L.,  Haythornwaite.  C.,  &  Wellman,  B.  (1997).  Studying  online  social  networks.   Journal  of  Computer  Mediated  Communication,  (3)1.     Genova,  G.L.  (2009).  No  place  to  play:  current  employee  privacy  rights  in  social   networking  sites.  Business  Communication  Quarterly  2009;  72:97-­‐103.     Gerstein,  S.    (1984).  Intimacy  and  privacy.    In  Schoeman,  F.  D.  (Eds.)  Philosophical   Dimensions  of  Privacy:  An  Anthology.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.     Geyer,  W.,  Dugan,  C.,  Millen,  D.R.,  Muller,  M.,  &  Freyne,  J..  (October  2008).   Recommending  topics  for  self  descriptions  in  online  user  profiles.  RecSys’08,   October  23–25,  2008,  Lausanne,  Switzerland.     Gjoka,  M.,  Sirivianos,  M.,  Markopoulou,  A.,  &  Yang,  X.  (2008).  Poking  Facebook:   characterization  of  osn  applications.  In  Proceedings  of  the  First  Workshop  on  online   Social  Networks  (Seattle,  WA,  USA,  August  18  -­  18,  2008).  WOSP  '08.  ACM,  New   York,  NY,  31-­‐36.     Golder,  S.,  Wilkinson,  D.,  &  Huberman,  B.  A.  (2007).  Rhythms  of  Social  Interaction:  Messa ging  within  a  Massive  Online  Network.  Paper  presented  at  the  3rd  International  Co nference  on  Communities  and  Technologies  (CT2007).  East  Lansing,MI.       Godwin,  P.  (2007).  Information  literacy  meets  Web  2.0:  How  the  new  tools  affect  our   own  training  and  our  teaching.  New  Review  of  Information  Networking,  13(2),   101-­‐112.     Goffman,  E.  (1959).  The  Presentation  of  Self  in  Everyday  Life.  New  York:  Doubleday.     Gosling,  S.D.,  Gaddis,  S.,  &  Vazire,  S..  (2007).  Personality  impressions  based  on  Facebook   profiles.  ICWSM’2007,  Boulder,  Colorado,  USA.     Govani,  T.,  &  Pashley,  H.  (2006).  Student  awareness  of  the  privacy  implications  when   using  Facebook.  Unpublished  manuscript.     Granovetter,  M.  (1973).  The  strength  of  weak  ties.  American  Journal  of  Sociology  78(6):   1360-­‐80.     Granovetter,  M.  (1983).  The  strength  of  weak  ties:  A  network  theory  revisited.   Sociological  Theory,  1:201–233.       Gross,  R.  &  Acquisti,  A.  (  November  2005).  Information  revelation  and  privacy  in  online   social  networks.  Paper  presented  at  the  WPES’05,  Alexandria,  Virginia,  USA.     152 Gueorguieva,  V.  (2008).  Voters,  MySpace,  and  YouTube:  the  impact  of  alternative   communication  channels  on  the  2006  election  cycle  and  beyond.  Social  Science   Computer  Review,  26,  288-­‐300.     Gwee,  S.  (2008,  March  12).  Caught  in  a  web  of  menace.  The  Straits  Times.  Retrieved   from:  http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20080312-­‐ 54069.html       Hammersley,  M.  (1996).  The  relationship  between  qualitative  and  quantitative   research:  Paradigm  loyalty  versus  methodological  eclecticism.  In  J.T.E.  Richardson   (ed.),  Handbook  of  Research  in  Psychology  and  the  Social  Sciences.  Leicester  UK:   BPS  Books.     Hancock,  J.  T.,  Toma,  C.  L.,  &  Fenner,  K.  (2008).  I  know  something  you  don't:  the  use  of   asymmetric  personal  information  for  interpersonal  advantage.  In  Proceedings  of   the  ACM  2008  Conference  on  Computer  Supported  Cooperative  Work  (San  Diego,  CA,   USA,  November  08  -­  12,  2008).  CSCW  '08.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  413-­‐416.       Hargittai,  E.  (2007).  Whose  space?  Differences  among  users  and  non-­‐users  of  social   network  sites.  Journal  of  Computer-­Mediated  Communication,  13(1).  Article  14.       Harris,  A.  (2008).  Young  women,  late  modern  politics,  and  the  participatory  possibilities   of  online  cultures.  Journal  of  Youth  Studies,  11(5):481-­‐495.     Haythornthwaite,  C.  (2005).  Social  networks  and  Internet  connectivity  effects.   Information,  Communication  and  Society,  8  (2),  125-­‐147.     Herring,  S.  (2008).  Questioning  the  Generational  Divide:  Technological  Exoticism  and   Adult  Constructions  of  Online  Youth  Identity.  In  Buckingham,  David  (Eds.)  Youth,   Identity,  and  Digital  Media.  Cambridge:  MIT  Press.     Hessler,  R.M.,  Downing,  J.,  Beltz,  C.,  Pelliccio,  A.,  Powell,  M.  &  Hale,  W.  (2003).  Qualitative   research  on  adolescent  risk  using  email:  a  methodological  assessment.  Qualitative   Sociology,  26(1),  111-­‐124.     Hewitt,  A.,  &  Forte,  A..  (2006).  Crossing  boundaries:  Identity  management  and   student/faculty  relationships  on  the  Facebook.  CSCW'06,  November  4-­8,  2006,   Banff,  Alberta,  Canada.     Hewson,  C.M.,  Yule,  P.,  Laurent,  D.,  &  Vogel,  C.M.  (2003)  Internet  research  methods:  A   practical  guide  for  the  social  and  behavorial  sciences.  London:  Sage.       Hewson,  C.  (2006).  Mixed  methods  research.  The  Sage  dictionary  of  social  research   methods.  London:  Sage.     Hewson,  C.  (2007).  Gathering  data  on  the  Internet:  Qualitative  approaches  and   possibilities  for  mixed  methods  research.  In  A.  Joinson,  K.  McKenna,  U.  Reips  &  T.   Postmes  (Ed.),  Oxford  Handbook  of  Internet  Psychology.  Oxford  University  Press.     153 Hinduja,  S.,  &  Patchin,  J.W.  (2008).  Personal  information  of  adolescents  on  the  Internet:   A  quantitative  content  analysis  of  MySpace.  Journal  for  Adolescence,  31,  125-­‐146.     Hodge,  M.J.  (2007).  The  Fourth  amendment  and  privacy  issues  on  the  “new”  internet:   Facebook.com  and  MySpace.com.  Southern  Illinois  University  Law  Journal.  31:95-­‐ 124.       Holloway,  S.L.,  &  Valentine,  G.  (2003).  Cyberkids:  children  in  the  information  age.  London:   RoutledgeFalmer.       Holter,  I.M.,  &  Schwartz  -­‐  Barcott,D.  (1993).  Action  Research:  What  is  it?  How  has  it  been   used  and  how  can  it  be  used  in  nursing?  Journal  of  Advanced  Nursing  1993:128;   298-­‐304.     Hsu,  W.H.,  Lancaster,  J.,  Paradesi,  M.S.R.,  &  Weninger,  T.  (2007).  Structural  link  analysis   from  user  profiles  and  friends  networks:  A  feature  construction  approach.   ICWSM'2007  Boulder,  Colorado,  USA.     Huffaker,  D.A.,  &  Calvert,  S.L.  (2005).  Gender,  identity,  and  language  use  in  teenage   blogs.  Journal  of  Computer-­mediated  Communication,  10(2).     Humphreys,  L.  (2007).  Mobile  social  networks  and  social  practice:  A  case  study  of   Dodgeball.  Journal  of  Computer-­Mediated  Communication,  13(1).  Article  17.     Immorlica,  N.,  Kleinberg,  J.,  Mahdian,  M.,  &  Wexler,  T.  (2007).  The  role  of  compatibility   in  the  diffusion  of  technologies  through  social  networks.  In  Proceedings  of  the  8th   ACM  Conference  on  Electronic  Commerce  (San  Diego,  California,  USA,  June  11  -­  15,   2007).  EC  '07.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  75-­‐83.     Jenkins,  H.  (1998).  Introduction:  Childhood  innocence  and  other  modern  myths.  In  The   children’s  cultural  reader,  Henry  Jenkins  (Eds).  New  York:  New  York  University   Press.     Jensen,  C.,  Potts,  C.,  &  Jensen,  C.  (2005).  Privacy  practices  of  Internet  users:  Self-­‐reports   versus  observed  behavior.  International  Journal  of  Human-­Computer  Studies,  63,   203-­‐227.     Jick,  T.D.  (1983).  Mixing  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods:  Triangulation  in  action.   In  J.  Van  Maanen  (Ed.),  Qualitative  methodology  (pp.  135-­‐148).  Beverly  Hills,  CA:   Sage.     Joinson,  A.  N.,  Paine,  C.  B.,  Buchanan,  T.,  &  Rieps,  U-­‐D.  (2006).  Privacy  and  self-­‐disclosure   online.  CHI  2006.       Joinson,  A.  N.,  Paine,  C.  B.,  Buchanan,  T.,  &  Rieps,  U-­‐D.  (2007).  Measuring  Internet  privacy   attitudes  and  behaviors:  A  multi-­dimensional  approach.       Joinson,  A.  N,  &  Paine,  C.B.  (2007).  Self-­‐disclosure,  privacy  and  the  Internet.  In  A.   Joinson,  K.  McKenna,  U.  Reips  &  T.  Postmes  (Ed.),  Oxford  Handbook  of  Internet   Psychology.  Oxford  University  Press.   154   Joinson,  A.N.  (2008)  Looking  at,  looking  up  or  keeping  up  with  people?:  motives  of  use   of  Facebook.  In  Conference  on  Human  Factors  in  Computing  Systems  (CHI),   (Florence,  Italy,  2008),  ACM  Press,  1027-­‐1036.     Jones,  S.,  Millermaier,  S.,  Goya-­‐Martinez,  M.,  &  Schuler,  J..  (2008).  Whose  space  is   MySpace  ?  A  content  analysis  of  MySpace  profiles.  First  Monday,  13(9).     Kamaraguru,  P.,  &  Cranor,  L.  F.  (2005).  Privacy  indexes:  A  survey  of  Westin’s  studies.   Institute  for  Software  Research  International,  Carnegie  Mellon  University,  Technical   Report,  CMU–ISRI–5–138.     Karlsson,  A-­‐M.  (1998).  Selves,  frames  and  functions  of  two  Swedish  teenagers’  personal   pages.  Presented  at  6th  International  pragmatics  conference.     Kavanaugh,  A.,  Reese,  D.,  &  Rosson,  M.  (2005).  Weak  ties  in  networked  communities.   Information  Society,  21(2).  119-­‐131.       Kemmis,  S.,  &  McTaggert,  R.,  (1990).  The  Action  Research  Planner.    Geelong:  Deakin   University  Press.     King,  D.L,  &  Brown,  S.W.  (2009).  Emerging  Trends,  2.0,  and  Libraries.  The  Serials   Librarian,  56(1),32-­‐  43.     Klopfer,  P.H.,  &  Rubenstein,  D.  I.  (1977).  The  concept  of  privacy  and  its  biological  basis.   Journal  of  Social  Issues.    33(3),  52-­‐65.     Knafl,  K.A.,  &  Breitmayer,  B.J.  (1989).  Triangulation  in  qualitative  research:  Issues  of   conception,  clarity,  and  purpose.  In  J.M.  Morse  (Ed.),  Qualitative  nursing  research:   A  contemporary  dialogue.  Rockville,  MD:  Aspen.     Kowalski,  R.M.,  Limber,  S.P.,  &  Agatston,  P.W.  (2008).  Cyber  Bullying.  Wiley-­‐Blackwell,   Malden,  MA.     Kraut,  R.  E.,  Kiesler,  S.,  Boneva,  B.,  Cummings,  J.,  Helgson,  V.,  &  Crawford,  A.  (2002).   Internet  paradox  revisted.  Journal  of  Social  Issues,  58(1),  49-­‐74.     Lampe,  C,  Ellison,  N.B.,  &  Steinfeld,  C.  (2006)  A  Face(book)  in  the  crowd:  Social   searching  vs.  social  browsing.  ACM  Special  interest  group  on  Computer-­Supported   Cooperative  Work,  (Banaff,  Canada,  2006).  ACM  Press.     Lampe,  C,  Ellison,  N.B.,  &  Steinfeld,  C.  (2007).  Profile  elements  as  signals  in  an  online   social  network.  ACM  conference  on  Human  factors  in  computing  systems  (CHI),  ACM   Press.     Lampe,  C,  Ellison,  N.B.,  &  Steinfeld,  C.  (2008)  Changes  in  use  and  perception  of   Facebook.  CSCW’08,  November  2008.  721-­‐730.     Latham,  R.P.,    Butzer,  C.C,  &  Brown,  J.T.  (2008).  Legal  Implications  of  User-­‐Generated   Content:  YouTube,  MySpace,  Facebook.  Intellectual  Property  &  Technology  Law   155 Journal,  20(5),  1-­‐0_1.  Retrieved  March  21,  2009,  from  ABI/INFORM  Global   database.     Lee,  A.,  &  Bruckman,  A..  (2007).  Judging  you  by  the  company  you  keep:  dating  on  social   networking  sites.  GROUP'07,  November  4-­7,  2007,  Sanibel  Island,  Florida,  USA.   Leedy,  P.D.  (2001).  Practical  research:  Planning  and  design  (7th  ed.).  New  York:   Macmillan.   Lenhart.  A.,  &  Madden,  M.  (2007).  Teens,  privacy,  &  online  social  networks.  Pew  Internet   and  American  Life  Project  report.   Levin,  A.,  &  Abril,  P.  S.  (2009).  Two  notions  of  privacy  online.  Vanderbilt  Journal  of   Entertainment  and  Technology  Law,  11,  1001-­‐1051.  Retrieved  from   http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/journal-­‐entertainment-­‐technology-­‐   law/archive/download.aspx?id=4167     Liau,  A.  K.,  Khoo,  A.,  &  Ang,  P.  H.  (2008).  Parental  awareness  and  monitoring   adolescents’  internet  use.  Current  Psychology,  27(4),  217-­233.     Livingstone,  S.  (2003).  Children’s  use  of  the  Internet:  Reflections  on  the  emerging   research  agenda.  New  Media  and  Society,  5(2),  147-­‐166.     Livingstone,  S.  (2008).  Taking  risky  opportunities  in  youthful  content  creation:   teenagers’  use  of  social  networking  sites  for  intimacy,  privacy  and  self-­‐expression.   New  Media  and  Society,  10  (3),  393-­‐411.     Livingstone,  S.,  &  Bovill,  M.  (2001).  Families  and  the  Internet:  An  observational  study  of   children  and  young  people’s  internet  use.  Retrieved  February  16,  2010,  from   London  School  of  Economics  Web   site:http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/btreport_familiesinternet. pdf     Livingstone,  S.  &  Bober,  M.  (2006).  Regulating  the  internet  at  home:  contrasting  the   perspectives  of  children  and  parents.  In  Buckingham,  D.  and  Willett,  R.  (Ed.).  Digital   generations:  children,  young  people  and  new  media.  Mahwah,  N.J.  :  Lawrence   Erlbaum,  2006,  pp.  93-­‐113.   Long,  A.  (2010).  Social  media  overtakes  search  engines.  Hitwise  Asia.  Retrived  from:   http://weblogs.hitwise.com/alan-­‐long/2010/01/post.html     Madhavan,  N.  (2007,  July  6).  India  gets  more  Net  Cool.  Hindustan  Times.  Retrieved  July   30,  2009  from   http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=f2565bb8-­‐663e-­‐ 48c1-­‐94ee-­‐d99567577bdd   Magid,  L.  (October,  2008).  Technology  forges  relationships  for  life.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/28/scitech/pcanswer/main455223 8.shtml   156   Malesky  Jr,  A.  L.  (2007).  Predatory  online  behavior:  Modus  operandi  or  convicted  sexual   offenders  in  identifying  potential  victims  and  contacting  minors  over  the  Internet.   Journal  of  Child  Sexual  Abuse,  16(2),  23-­‐32.   Margulis,  S.  T.  (1979).  Privacy  as  information  management:  A  social  psychological  and   environmental  framework.  Washington  DC:  US  Department  of  Commerce,  National   Bureau  of  Standards.   Marwick,  A.  (2005).  'I'm  a  Lot  More  Interesting  than  a  Friendster  Profile':  Identity   Presentation,  Authenticity  and  Power  in  Social  Networking  Services.  Paper   presented  at  AOIR  6.0,  Chicago,  IL.     McCandlish,  S.  (2002).  EFF’s  top  12  ways  to  protect  your  online  privacy.  Retrieved   December  10,  2010,  from  Electronic  Frontier  Foundation  website:   http://www.eff.org/Privacy/  eff_privacy_top_12.html  Mann,  C.,  &  Stewart,  F.   (2000).  Internet  communication  and  qualitative  research:  A  handbook  for   researching  online.  London:Sage.   McCutcheon,  G.,  &  Jurg,  B.  (1990).  Alternative  Perspectives  on  Action  Research.  Theory   into  Practice.  24(3).   McTaggert,  R.,  (1992).  Action  Research:  Issues  in  Theory  and  Practice  Keynote  address  to   the  Methodological  Issues  in  Qualitative  Health  Research  Conference,  Friday   November  27th,  1992,  Geelong:  Deakin  University.   Metzger,  M.  J.  (2004)  Privacy,  Trust,  and  Disclosure:  Exploring  Barriers  to  Electronic   Commerce.  Journal  of  Computer-­Mediated  Communication  (9)  4.   Milgram,  S.    (1967).  The  small  world  problem.  Psychology  Today,  6:62–67.     Milgram.  S.  (1977).  The  familiar  stranger:  An  aspect  of  urban  anonymity.  Milgram,  S.,   Sabini,  J.,  and  Silver,  M.  (Eds.)  The  Individual  in  a  Social  World:  Essays  and   Experiments.  Addison-­‐Wesley,  Reading,  MA.     Mislove,  A.,  Marcon,  M.,  Gummadi,  K.  P.,  Druschel,  P.,    &  Bhattacharjee,  B.  (2007).   Measurement  and  analysis  of  online  social  networks.  In  Proceedings  of  the  7th   ACM  SIGCOMM  Conference  on  internet  Measurement  (San  Diego,  California,  USA,   October  24  -­  26,  2007).  IMC  '07.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  29-­‐42.     Mitchell,  E.S.  (1986).  Multiple  triangulation:  A  methodology  for  nursing  science.   Advances  in  Nursing  Science,  8  (3),  18-­‐25.     Mitchell,  K.  J.,  Finkelhor,  D.,  &  Wolak,  J.  (2001).  Risk  factors  for  and  impact  of  online   sexual  solicitation  of  youth.  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  285(23),   3011-­‐3014.     Mitchell,  K.  J.,  Finkelhor,  D.,  &  Wolak,  J.  (2003).  The  exposure  of  youth  to  unwanted   157 sexual  material  on  the  Internet:  A  national  survey  of  risk,  impact,  and  prevention.   Youth  and  Society,  34(3),  330-­‐358.     Mitchell,  K.  J.,  Finkelhor,  D.,  &  Wolak,  J.  (2004).  Victimization  of  youths  on  the  Internet.   Journal  of  Aggression,  Maltreatment  and  Trauma,  1-­‐39.     Monberg,  J.  (2005).  Trajectories  of  computer-­‐mediated  communication  research.   Southern  Communication  Journal,  70,  181-­‐186.   Moreland,  R.  L.  &  Levine,  J.M.  Socialization  in  small  groups:  Temporal  changes  in   individual-­‐group  relations.  Advances  in  Experimental  Social  Psychology,  15.  137-­‐ 192.   Moscardelli,  D.  M.,  &  Divine,  R.  (2007).  Adolescents’  concern  for  privacy  when  using  the   Internet:  An  empirical  analysis  of  predictors  and  relationships  with  privacy-­‐ protecting  behaviors.  Family  and  Consumer  Sciences  Research  Journal,  35(3),  232-­‐ 252.   Murthy,  D.  (2008).  Digital  ethnography:  An  examination  of  the  use  of  new  technologies   for  social  research.  Sociology  2008,  42;  837-­‐855.   Nardi,  B.  A.  (2005).  Beyond  bandwidth:  Dimensions  of  connection  in  interpersonal   communication.  Computer  Supported  Coop  Work,  1(4),  91-­‐130.   Nazir,  A.,  Raza,  S.,  &  Chuah,  C.  (2008).  Unveiling  Facebook:  a  measurement  study  of   social  network  based  applications.  In  Proceedings  of  the  8th  ACM  SIGCOMM   Conference  on  internet  Measurement  (Vouliagmeni,  Greece,  October  20  -­‐  22,   2008).  IMC  '08.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,  43-­‐56.   Newkirk,  C.D.,  &  Viehauser,  A.L..  (December  2008).  The  ConnectU  and  Facebook  dispute:   has  the  final  chapter  been  written?  Intellectual  Property  &  Technology  Law   Journal,  20(12):1-­‐7.   Nie.  N.  H.  (2001).  Sociability,  interpersonal  relations  and  the  Internet:  Reconciling   conflicting  findings.  American  Behavioral  Scientist,  45,  420-­‐435.   Nyland,  R.,  Marvez,  R.  &  Beck.,  J.  (2007).  MySpace:  social  networking  or  social  isolation?   Presented  at  Association  for  Education  in  Journalism  and  Mass  Communication.   O’Murchu,  I.,  Breslin,  J.G.,  &  Decker,  S.  (2004).  Online  social  and  business  networking   communities.  DERI  Technical  Report,  1-­‐22.   Palen,  L.,  &  Dourish,  P.  (2003).  Unpacking  “privacy”  for  a  networked  world.  Proceeedings   of  SIGCHI  conference  on  Human  factors  in  computing  systems,  CHI’03.   Papacharissi,  Z.  (2009).  The  virtual  geographies  of  social  networks:  a  comparative   analysis  of  Facebook,  LinkedIn  and  ASmallWorld.  New  Media  Society,  11.  199-­‐220.   158 Punamaki,  R-­‐L.,  Wallenius,  M.,  Hygard,  C-­‐H.,  Saarni,  L.,  &  Rimpela,  A.  (  2007).  Use  of   information  and  communication  technology  (ICT)  and  perceived  health  in   adolesence:  The  role  of  sleeping  habits  and  waking-­‐time  tiredness.  Journal  of   Adolescence,  30,    569-­‐585.   Ray,  W.J.  (2006).  Methods  toward  a  science  of  behavior  and  experience.  Australia:   Thomson  Wadsworth.   Reips,  U-­‐D.  (2002).  Context  effects  in  web  surveys.  Online  social  sciences.  Seattle,  WA:   Hogrefe  and  Huber.   Rheingold,  H.  (2000).  The  virtual  community:  Homesteading  on  the  electronic  frontier.  2nd   edition.  New  York:  Addison.   Rossi,  P.  &  Whyte,  W.  F.  (1983).The  applied  side  of  sociology.  In  Freeman,  HE,  Dynes,   RR.,  Rossi,  PH.,  and  Whyte,  WF  (eds),  Applied  Sociology  SF:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Publishers.   Ryberg,  T.,  &  Christiansen,  E.  (2008).  Community  and  social  network  sites  as   Technology  Enhanced  Learning  Environments.  Technology,  Pedagogy  and   Education,  17(3),207-­‐219.   Schiller,  S.  Z.  &  Mandviawalla,  M.  (2007).  Virtual  team  research:  An  analysis  of  theory   use  and  a  framework  for  theory  appropriation.  Small  Group  Research  38(1),  12-­‐59.   Schuman,  H.  (1992).  Context  effects:  State  of  the  past/state  of  the  art.  Context  effects  in   social  and  psychological  research.  New  York:  Springer-­‐Verlag.   Schuman,  H.,  &  Presser,  S.  (1981).  Question  and  answers  in  attitude  surveys,   experiments  on  question  form,  wording,  and  context.  New  York:  Academic  Press.   Schwarz,  N.,  &  Bless,  H.  (1992).  Scandals  and  public  trust  in  politicians:  Assimilation  and   contrast  effects.  Personality  and  Social  Psychology  bulletin,  18,  574-­‐579.   Schwarz,  N.    &  Glore,  G.  L.  (1983).  Mood,  misattribution,  and  judgements  of  well-­‐being:   informative  and  directive  functions  of  affective  states.  Journal  of  Personality  and   Social  Psychology,  45,  513-­‐523.     Schutz,  A.,  &  Machilek,  F.  (2003).  Who  owns  a  personal  home  page?  A  discussion  of   sampling  problems  and  a  strategy  based  on  a  search  engine.  Swiss  journal  of   psychology,  62(2),  121-­‐129.   Seale,  C.,  Gobo,  G.,  Gubrium,  J.F.  &  Silverman,  D.  (eds).  (2004).  Qualitative  Research   Practice,  London:  Sage.   Selfhout,  M.  H.W.,  Branje,  S.J.T.,  Delsing,  M.,  ter  Bogt,  T.F.M,  &  Meeus,  W.H.J.  (2008).   Different  types  of  Internet  use,  depression,  and  social  anxiety:  The  role  of   perceived  friendship  quality.  Journal  of  Adolescence,  1-­‐15.     159 Silverman,  D.  (1993).  Interpreting  qualitative  data:  methods  for  analysing  talk,  text  and   interaction.  London:  Sage.   Sithigh,  D.M.  (2008).  The  mass  age  of  internet  law.  Informations  and  Communications   Technology  Law.  17(2),  79-­‐94.   Smith,  H.W.  (1975).  Strategies  of  Social  Research:  The  Methodological  Imagination.   Englewood  Cliffs,  NJ:  Prentice-­‐Hall.   Snyder,  J.  &  Slauson,  G,  J.  (2006).  MySpace.com  –  A  social  networking  site  and  social   contract  theory.  EDSIG,  23.  1-­‐9.   Synder,  J.,  Carpenter,  D.,  &  Saluson,  G.J.  (2007).  MySpace.com  –  A  social  networking  site   and  social  contract  theory.  Information  Systems  Education  Journal,  5(2).   Sohier,  R.  (1988).  Multiple  triangulation  and  contemporary  nursing  research.  Western   Journal  of  Nursing  Research,  10  (6),  732-­‐742.   Stafford,  R.  (2006).  Why  parents  must  mind  MySpace.  Retrieved  August  12,  2009,  from   http://  www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11064451/     Stern,  M.  J.,  &  Dillman,  D.  A.  (2006).  Community  participation,  social  ties,  and  use  of  the   Internet.  City  and  Commnunity,  5(4),  407-­‐424.   Stern,  L.  &  Taylor,  K.  (2007)  Social  networking  on  Facebook.  Journal  of  the   Communication,  Speech  &  Theatre  Association  of  North  Dakota,  30,  9-­‐20.     Stern,  S.  (2008).  Producing  sites,  exploring  identities:  Youth  online  authorship.  Youth,   Identity  and  Digital  media,  95-­‐118.   Strak,  F.  (1992).  'Order  effects'  in  survey  research:  activation  and  information  functions   of  preceding  questions.  Context  effects  of  in  social  and  psychology  research.  New   York:  Springer-­‐Verlag.   Strater,  K.,  &  Richter,  H..  (2007).  Examining  privacy  and  disclosure  in  a  social   networking  community.  Symposium  On  Usable  Privacy  and  Security  (SOUPS)  2007,   July  18-­20,  2007,  Pittsburgh,  PA,  USA.     Stutzman,  F.  (2005).  Student  life  on  facebook.  Unpublished  manuscript.  Retrieved   February  24,  2008  from  http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2005/10/freshman-­‐ facebook-­‐zeitgeist.html   Stutzman,  F.  (2006)  An  evaluation  of  identity-­‐sharing  behavior  in  social  network   communities.  Journal  of  the  International  Digital  Media  and  Arts  Association,  3(1),   10-­‐18.   Sundén,  J.  (2003)  Material  Virtualities:  Approaching  Online  Textual  Embodiment.  New   York:Peter  Lang.   160 Suhr,  H.C.  (2009).  Underpinning  the  paradoxes  in  the  artistic  fields  of  MySpace:  the   problematization  of  values  and  popularity  in  convergence  culture.  New  Media   Society,  11,  179-­‐198.   Sullivan,  M.  (November,  2008).  “Facebook  effect”  mobilizes  youth  vote.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.thelantern.com/2.1345/facebook-­‐effect-­‐mobilizes-­‐youth-­‐vote-­‐ 1.73572   Tapscott,  D.  (1998).  Growing  up  digital:  The  rise  of  the  Net  generation.  New  York:   McGraw-­‐Hill.   Tavani,  H.T.  (1999).  Privacy  and  the  Internet.  In  R.A.  Spinello  (Ed.),  Proceedings  of  the   Fourth  Annual  Conference  on  Ethics  and  Technology  (pp.  114–125).  Chestnut  Hill,   MA:  Boston  College  Press.   Taylor,  H.  (2003).  Most  people  are  ‘privacy  pragmatists’  who,  while  concerned  about   privacy,  will  sometimes  trade  it  off  for  other  benefits.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=365     Thomas,  A.  (2007).  Youth  online:  identity  and  literacy  in  the  digital  age.  NY:  Peter  Lang.   Tosh,  D.,  &  Weldmuller,  B..  (2004).  Creation  of  a  learning  landscape:  weblogging  and   social  networking  in  the  context  of  e-­portfolios.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.eradc.org/papers     Tourangeau,  R.  (1992).  Context  effects  on  responses  to  attitude  questions:  attitudes  as   memory  structures.  Contact  effects  in  social  and  psychology  research.  New  York:   Springer-­‐Verlag.     Tourangeau,  R.,  Couper,  M.,  &  Conrad,  F.  (2004).  Spacing,  position  and  order:   Interpretive  heuristics  for  visual  features  of  survey  questions.  Public  Opinion   Quarterly,  68(3),  368-­‐393.     Tourganeau,  R.,  &  Rasinki,  K.A.  (1988).  Cognitive  processes  underlying  context  effects  in   attitude  management.  Psychological  Bulletin,  103,  299-­‐314.     Tourangeau,  R.,  Rips.,  L.  J.,  &  Raskinki,  K.  A.  (2000).  The  psychology  of  survey  response.   New  York:  Cambridge  University  Press.     Tourangeau,  R.,  &  Smith,  T.W.  (1996).  Asking  sensitive  questions:  The  impact  of  date   collection  mode,  question  format  and  question  context.  Public  Opinion  Quarterly,   60,  275-­‐304.     Trusov,  M.,  Bucklin  R.E.,  &  Pauwels,  K.  (2007).  Estimating  the  Dynamic  Effects  of  Online   Word-­‐Of-­‐Mouth  of  member  growth  of  a  social  networking  site.  Working  paper,   Robert  H.  Smith  school  of  business,  University  of  Maryland.     161 Trusov,  M.,  Bucklin,  R.  E.,  &  Pauwels,  K.H..  (2008).  Effects  of  word-­‐of-­‐mouth  versus   traditional  marketing:  findings  from  an  internet  social  networking  site.  Robert  H.   Smith  School  Research  Paper  No.  RHS  06-­‐065.     Tufecki,  Z.  (2008).  Can  you  see  me  now?  Audience  and  disclosure  regulation  in  online   social  networking  sites.  Bulletin  of  Science  Technology  Society,  28(1),  20-­36.     Turchi,  J.  A.  (2007).  Homophily  and  online  networks:  young  adult  relationships  in   myspace.  Master's  thesis,  Clemson  University,  Clemson,  SC.     Turkle,  S.  (1995).  Life  on  screen:  Identity  in  the  age  of  the  Internet.  New  York  :  Simon  &   Schuster.     Tynes,  B.M.  (2007)  Internet  safety  gone  wild?  Sacrificing  the  education  and  psychosocial   benefits  of  online  social  environments.  Journal  of  Adolescence  research,  22(6),  575   -­‐584.     Ulrich,  J.  M.,  &  Harris,  A.  L.  (Eds.).  (2003).  GenXegesis:  Essays  on  alternative  youth   (sub)culture.  Madison:  The  University  of  Wisconsin  Press/Popular  Press.       Valenzuela,  S.,  Park.,  N.  &  Kee,  K.F.  (2008).  Lessons  from  Facebook:  The  effect  of  social   network  sites  on  college  students’  social  capital.  Submitted  to  International   Symposium  on  Online  Journalism.       Valkenburg,  P.M,  Peter,  J.,  &  Schouten,  A.P.  (2006).  Friend  networking  sites  and  their   relationship  to  adolescents'  well-­‐being  and  social  self-­‐esteem.  CyberPsychology  &   Behavior,  9(5):  584-­‐590.     Vie,  S  (2007).  Engaging  others  in  online  social  networking  sites:  rhetorical  practices  in   MySpace  and  Facebook  .  University  of  Arizona.     Villar,  E.,  Juan,  E.  C,  &  Capell,  D.  (2000).  What  kind  of  networking  strategy  advice  should   career  counselors  offer  university  graduates  searching  for  a  job?  British  Journal  of   Guidance  &  Counseling,  28,  299-­‐405.     Wark,  M.  (1993).  Planet  of  noise:  So  who  are  generation  X  and  why  are  they  saying  these   terrible  things  about  us?  Juice,  74-­‐78.     Walther,  J.  B.  (1994).  Anticipated  ongoing  interactions  versus  channel  effects  on   relational  communication  in  computer-­‐mediated  interaction.  Human   Communication  Research,  20(4),  473-­‐501.     Walther,  J.  B.,  Van  Der  Heide,  B.,  Kim,  S.  Y.,  Westerman,  D.,  &  Tong,  S.  T.  (2008).  The  role   of  friends’  appearance  and  behavior  on  evaluations  of  individuals  on  Facebook:   Are  we  know  by  the  company  we  keep?  Human  Communication  Research,  34(1),   28-­‐49.     Walther,  J.B.,  Van  Der  Heide,  B.,  Hamel,  L.M.,  &  Shulman,  H.C.  (2009).  Self-­‐generated   versus  other-­‐generated  statements  and  impressions  in  computer-­‐mediated   162 communication:  A  test  of  warranting  theory  using  Facebook.  Communication   Research,  36(2):  229-­‐253.       Wallace,  P.  (1999).  The  Psychology  of  the  Internet.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University   Press.     Watts,  D.  (2003).  Six  Degrees:  The  science  of  a  connected  age.  W.W.Norton  &  Company.     Weber,  S.,  and  Mitchell,  C.  (2008).  Imaging,  Keyboarding,  and  Posting  Identities:  Young   People  and  New  Media  Technologies.  In:  Buckingham,  D.  (Ed.)  (2008).  Youth,   Identity,  And  Digital  Media.  (pp.  25-­‐47)  Cambridge:  The  MIT  press.     Webb,  E.J.,  Campbell,  D.T.,  Schwartz,  R.D.,  Sechrest,  L.,  &  Grove,  J.  B.  (1981).  Nonreactive   measures  in  the  social  sciences.  Boston:  Houghton  Mifflin.     Weinberg,  H.  (2002).  Community  unconscious  on  the  Internet.  Group  Analysis,  35  (1).     Weisband,  S.,  &  Kiesler,  S.  (1986).  Self-­‐disclosure  on  computer  forms:  Meta-­‐analysis  and   implications.  Proceedings  of  CHI86.     Wells,  M.,  &  Mitchell,  K.J.  (2008).  How  do  high-­‐risk  youth  use  the  Internet?   Characteristics  and  implications  for  prevention.  Children  Maltreatment,  13(3),   227-­‐234.     Wellman,  B.,  Salaff,  J.,  Dimitrova,  D.,  Garton,  L.,  Gulia,  M.,  &  Haythornthwaite,  C.  (1996).   Computer  networks  as  social  networks:  Collaborative  work,  telework,  and  virtual   community.  Annual  Review  of  Sociology.     Wellman,  B.  Which  kinds  of  ties  and  networks  give  what  kinds  of  social  support?   Advances  in  Group  Processes,  9.  207-­‐235.     Wellman,  B.,  Hase,  A.  Q.,  Witte,  J.  &  Hampton,  K.  (2001).  Does  the  Internet  increase,   decrease,  or  supplement  social  capital?:  Social  networks,  participation,  and   community  commitment.  American  Behavioral  Scientist  45:  436-­‐455.     Wenger,  E.  &  Snyder,  W.  (2000).  Communities  of  practice,  the  organizational  frontier.   Harvard  Business  Review.  January-­‐February,  139-­‐145.       Westin,  A.  (1967).  Privacy  and  freedom.  New  York:  Atheneum.     Willard,  N.E.  (2007).  The  “MySpace  Phenomenon”.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.galeschools.com/article_archive/2006/03/myspace.htm       Wilson,  M.  &  Nicholas,  C.  (2008).  Topological  analysis  of  an  online  social  network  for   older  adults.  In  Proceeding  of  the  2008  ACM  Workshop  on  Search  in  Social  Media   (Napa  Valley,  California,  USA,  October  30  -­  30,  2008).  SSM  '08.  ACM,  New  York,  NY,   51-­‐58.     Wimmer,  R.  D.  &  Dominick,  J.  R.  (2000).  Mass  media  research:  An  introduction.  Chapter  8.   Survey  research  (p.  160-­‐199).  New  York:  Wadsworth.     163 Windahl,  S.,  Hojerback,  I.,  &  Hedinsson,  E.  (1986).  Adolescents  without  television:  A   study  in  media  deprivation.  Journal  of  Broadcasting  &  Electronic  Media,  30,  47–63.     Wolak,  J.,  Mitchell,  K.,  &  Finkelhor,  D.  (2002).  Close  online  relationships  in  a  national   sample  of  adolescents.  Journal  of  Adolescence,  (37)  147,  442-­‐455.     Wolak,  J.,  Mitchell,  K.,  &  Finkelhor,  D.  (2003).  Escaping  or  connecting?  Characteristics  of   youths  who  form  close  online  relationships.  Journal  of  Adolescence,  26,  105-­‐119.     Wolak,  J.,  Mitchell,  K.,  &  Finkelhor,  D.  (2004).  Victimization  of  youths  on  the  Internet.   Journal  of  Aggression,  Maltreatment  and  Trauma,  8(1),  1-­‐39.     Wolak,  J.,  Mitchell,  K.,  &  Finkelhor,  D.  (2005):  Does  online  harassment  constitute   bullying?  An  exploration  of  online  harassment  by  known  peers  and  online-­‐only   contacts.  Journal  of  Adolescent  Health,  41(6),  51-­‐58.     Wolak,  J.,  Mitchell,  K.,  &  Finkelhor,  D.  (2006).  Online  victimization  of  youths:  Five  years   later.  Report  from  Crimes  Against  Children  Research  Center,  University  of  New   Hampshire.       Wong,  T.  (2007).  Parents  may  get  help  to  understand  new  media  soon.  The  Straits  Times,   20  November  2007.     Yabarra,  M.  L.,  &  Mitchell,  K.  J.  (2004).  Online  aggressor/targets,  aggressors,  and  targets:   a  comparison  of  associated  youth  characteristics.  Journal  of  Child  Psychology  and   Psychiatry,  45(7),  1308-­‐1316.     Yabarra,  M.  L.,  &  Mitchell,  K.  J.  (2004).  Youth  engaging  in  online  harassment:   associations  with  giver-­‐child  relationships,  Internet  use,  and  personal   characteristics.  Journal  of  Adolescence,  319-­‐336.     Yabarra,  M.  L.,  &  Mitchell,  K.  J.  (2005).  Exposure  to  Internet  pornography  among   children  and  adolescents:  A  national  survey.  Cyberpsychology  and  behavior,  8(5),   473-­‐486.     Yabarra,  M.  L.,  &  Mitchell,  K.  J.  (2008).  How  risky  are  social  networking  sites?  A   comparison  of  palces  online  where  youth  sexual  solicitation  and  harassment   occurs.  Official  journal  of  the  American  Academy  of  Pediatrics,  350-­‐357.     Young,  A.  L.,  &  Quan-­‐Hasse,  A.  (2009).  Information  revelation  and  internet  privacy   concerns  on  social  network  sites:  a  case  study  of  Facebook.  Proceedings  of  the   fourth  international  conference  on  Communities  and  technologies,  C&T’09.             164 Appendices       Annotated  diagrams  for  Facebook  features         Figure  1:    News  Feed  feature  on  Facebook                         165   D A E B C F   Figure  2:  Facebook  profile     A:  Profile  picture  with  links  to  the  number  of  pictures  and  videos  of  user  below   the  picture     B:  Personal  information  (location,  birthday,  relationship  status,  etc.)     C:  Friends  list:  Number  of  friends  user  is  linked  to     D:  User  status:  can  be  updated  frequently,  friends  of  user  can  comment  on  the   user  status     E:  Recent  activity  of  user:  Latest  addition  of  a  new  friend  to  friend  list,   commenting  on  another  friend’s  status  or  link,  etc.     F:  Public  comments  and  messages  posted  on  the  “Wall”  of  the  user           166   A D B C   Figure  3:  Features  of  News  Feed     A:  Quizzes  taken  by  friends  created  by  their  friends       B:  Friends’  status  and  their  friends’  comments  on  their  status.  A  “Like”  option   can  be  selected  to  indicate  support  for  the  statuses.     C:  Events  which  the  user  is  attending  (only  for  the  user’s  view).  Other  events   such  as  friends’  upcoming  birthdays  are  also  published  here.     D:  Highlights  section:  Links,  pictures  and  videos  which  friends  in  the  Friend’s  list   have  uploaded.           167       Fig.  4  IDA  Annual  Survey  on  Infocomm  Usage  in  Households  and  by  individuals     for  2006       Retrived  online  on  29  February  2008   http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070823161317.aspx     168 [...]...  hopes  to  bridge  the  gap,  by  understanding  the   knowledge  about  SNS  parents and  their  children,  as  well  as  how  youths  portray   themselves   online,   if   they   are   savvy   enough   to   protect   themselves   online   and   how  youths  utilize  SNS  settings  to  protect  their personal information and  their   level  of information disclosure  in  SNS       12 This  research...  youths and  SNS       Chapter   Four   rounds   up   the   literature   review   by   compiling   a   coherent   theoretical   framework   for   privacy   and   information   disclosure   Based   on   existing   scholarship,  the  concept  of privacy  is  examined  in  the  context  of  social  network   theory   Information   disclosure   is   also   drawn   into   the   discussion   and   privacy. .. discussion   and   privacy   literature   on   parents   and   youths   are   discussed,   including   on-­‐going   debates   on   youths   and   online   privacy   The   chapter   concludes   with  research   questions   that   seek   to   understand   how   youths   portray   themselves   online   as   well   as   their   perceptions  of online privacy  vis  a  vis  their  parents’     Chapter  ... different   disciplines   and   fields,   from   technology   to   the   social   sciences   and   they   involve   issues   such   as   online   privacy   and   identity   formation   Therefore   the   literature   review   for   SNS   also   reflect   the   multi-­‐disciplinary   nature   of   SNS,   from   social   sciences   to   computer   science   to   marketing   and   privacy   and   surveillance...  between  youths’ and  parents’  perceptions  of  the   risk  of personal information disclosure  vis  a  vis  Facebook?     For  the  rest  of  Chapter  One,  context  for  this  study  is  set  by  providing  background   information   on   the   basic   features   of   SNS,   how   SNS   became   a   worldwide   phenomenon   and   in   particular,   the   rise   of   Facebook   and   how   Facebook...  for  the online  surveys     Chapter  Seven  provides  analyses  of  the  data  collected  from  the online  surveys  to   first   establish   youths’   as   well   as   their   parents’   perception   of   offline   and   online   privacy   Following   that,   findings   from   the   surveys   shall   be   utilized   to   demonstrate  if  there  exist  any  disparities  on online privacy  perceptions... once   the   information   is   online,   it   may   be   subject   to   misinterpretation   Through   their   SNS   profiles,   youths   can   express   certain   aspects   of   their   identity   for   their   peers   to   see   and   interpret   They   construct  their  profiles  for  their  friends and  peers  to  view and  because  there  is  a   link  between  their online and  offline...   and   for   children   to   rein   their   enthusiasm and  to  use  the  technology  responsibly       2.2.1 Online  sexual  solicitations   Many   studies   have   been   conducted   on   youth   and   online   sexual   solicitations,   as   this   is   a   real   online   danger   that   is   faced   by   youths,   who   may   not   be   equipped   emotionally  to  deal  with  predators online. ..  the  following  questions:   RQ1:  Do  Singaporean  youths  adopt privacy  safeguards  in  Facebook?     RQ2:   What   is   the   extent   and   nature   of   information   disclosure   by   Singapore   youths  in  SNS?   RQ3:   To   what   extent   are   Singaporean   parents   aware   of   the   nature   of   personal   information   disclosure   by   their   teenage   children   in   Facebook?   RQ4:...  argues  that  generations  are  socially and   culturally  defined and  produced     Different   generations   will   have   different   tastes,   orientations,   beliefs   and   dispositions,  which  led  to  the  invention and  use  of  a  category  like  “Generation  X”   (and   its   subsequent   mutations),   reflecting   both   the   importance   and   complexity   of   age   –based   distinctions ...  theory, privacy and information disclosure 44   4.1  Concept  of privacy 44   4.2  Social  network  theory and privacy 47   4.3 Online information disclosure and. .. privacy 48   4.4  SNS and privacy 51   4.4.1  SNS privacy  policies and  settings 53 4.5  Parents and online privacy 54   4.6  Youths and online. ..  close  to and  whom  we  may  not  want   to  share  such personal information  with       4.3 Online information disclosure and privacy   An  area  of  concern  for  parents and  educators

Ngày đăng: 06/10/2015, 20:43

TỪ KHÓA LIÊN QUAN

TÀI LIỆU CÙNG NGƯỜI DÙNG

TÀI LIỆU LIÊN QUAN

w